Belgium Investigates Suspected Cyber Spying By Foreign State 158
First time accepted submitter julf writes "The Belgian newspaper De Standaard reports that in an internal investigation, Belgacom, the mostly state-owned telecoms operator in Belgium, discovered evidence that the NSA has been listening in (Dutch) on the Belgacom network since 2011. From the Reuters article: 'Belgium said on Monday it was investigating suspected foreign state espionage against its main telecoms company, which is the top carrier of voice traffic in Africa and the Middle East, and a newspaper pointed the finger at the United States. Federal prosecutors said in a statement that the former state telecoms monopoly Belgacom had filed a complaint in July about the hacking of several servers and computers. "The inquiry has shown that the hacking was only possible by an intruder with significant financial and logistic means," they said.'"
This has been going on... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since it is belgacom, I'm surprised they even discovered it; Very likely it could have gone on for years, and they are only seeing the most-recent intrusion.
Belgacom generally are incompetent, such that it often takes them 4-5 attempts to connect a phone-line (per our repeated experience, ca everytime someone in the area moves)
Re: (Score:2)
Well on the upside someone actually had to hack their way in. In at least one other country, the telecoms incumbent was sold off, and the national ID registry was outsourced to an American company. When the NSA wants access to either, they will not have to be nearly as crude about it.
It IS understandable why they are spying there. (Score:1)
Belgium was the home of the most notorious super villains EVAR [whysanity.net].
And the last thing the US needs is to be blackmailed again for *dum-dum DAH* ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!
Will Europe contain the USA? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an interesting development.
Having said that, the Germans, French, and other European states have publicly denounced NSA spying. Yet, they all quietly continue to work as normal with the US. So... what gives? Are they politically motivated to put limits on NSA spying or is it all for public show?
Re:Will Europe contain the USA? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an interesting development.
Having said that, the Germans, French, and other European states have publicly denounced NSA spying. Yet, they all quietly continue to work as normal with the US. So... what gives? Are they politically motivated to put limits on NSA spying or is it all for public show?
To them, the US is essentially a necessary evil (how evil depends on your point of view, I guess). European governments depend on the US for protection both militarily (NATO) and through other methods such as the NSA/CIA. By working with the NSA, they gain access to some of the NSA's capabilities without having to make the necessary investments to their own security apparatus, which allows them to divert funds and energy to other things. Obviously the population of Eurpe is not happy with the NSA, or with the US government generally (however I feel like they at least are generally amiable towards Americans as individuals). So, essentially the European governments are getting to have their cake and eat it too. Privately they get the support necessary from the US government to continue on the way they have been, while publicly denouncing it to appeal to their domestic constituency. They probably don't like it, but more than likely they see it as the only option.
Re:Will Europe contain the USA? (Score:5, Interesting)
European governments depend on the US for protection both militarily (NATO)
Really?
The biggest conventional military threat to EU nations would be Russia, which has about 1 million active duty military personnel. If France, Italy, Germany, and the UK combine, they have forces roughly even with Russia. If things get bad enough, the rest of the EU would certainly be interested in defending themselves, so you'd have Greece, Spain, Poland, and Romania putting in another 400,000 or so into action, plus a lot of smaller countries fielding forces of around 30-40,000 troops. Even if you look at nukes, then yes, Russia could blow up Europe, but the UK and France could also blow up Russia. And if everyone mobilizes their reserves, that doesn't change the math much.
As far as spying goes, I'm sure that the Europeans have significant investments in it. Sure, they probably work with the US to get their hands on the latest and greatest, but there's no reason to think they're slouches in that department. And in counter-terrorism, the UK and Spain have had lots of practice at dealing with terrorists (the IRA and Basque separatists) and would be able to lead the effort if they needed to.
So I'm not convinced that the EU depends on the US to defend itself. It cooperates with the US for the cost reasons you've mentioned, but the "we need the Americans to be able to defend ourselves" argument isn't valid.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest conventional military threat to EU nations would be Russia, which has about 1 million active duty military personnel. If France, Italy, Germany, and the UK combine, they have forces roughly even with Russia. If things get bad enough, the rest of the EU would certainly be interested in defending themselves, so you'd have Greece, Spain, Poland, and Romania putting in another 400,000 or so into action, plus a lot of smaller countries fielding forces of around 30-40,000 troops.
If your entire analysis of the military is based on troop numbers, then it's useless. How many planes does each have? What are their prospects of gaining air superiority? Do you understand why air superiority is important in military engagements? These are the sorts of questions you need to ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia doesn't have the logistics to go to conventional war with EU. There is no way it could get its supply lines running to handle that kind of campaign. Even if they did gain air superiority, there are too many anti-air systems in the EU to allow them air supremacy, and without air supremacy the campaign would eventually grind to a halt. Hopefully such all-out conflicts are a thing of the past.
The EU's problem is that it has practically no force projection capability itself. France could handle Mali, but
Re: (Score:2)
Russia doesn't have the logistics to go to conventional war with EU. There is no way it could get its supply lines running to handle that kind of campaign.
This is hard to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
It has "force projection ability". It simply doesn't care to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is much better equipped than Russia when they work together: They have over 2000 combat aircraft (second only to the US), a navy that is somewhat larger than the US complete with 4 carriers, 6000 main battle tanks and plenty of other hardware, giving them approximately 3:2 superiority over what Russia has in most areas.
Anyone thinking seriously of attacking Europe with conventional weapons is asking for a serious smackdown: They could probably take on China or the US if they had to.
Re: (Score:1)
dkleinsc is right. There is another point: The entire EU together have less enemies than US.
Anyway, the EU really needs US, but it's not about military: it's about economy.
Re:Will Europe contain the USA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe has plenty enough military capability for its needs. France and the UK spend a disproportionate amount of money on their militaries. I really doubt military protection even crosses the minds of politicians in Europe.
Politicians roll over for a variety of reasons. One is that some of them have the same worldview as the most hawkish members of Congress. Look at how Cameron and some other senior Tory MP's were salivating over the idea of bombing the shit out of Syria. The disappointment at the no vote was obviously not faked, they genuinely felt like that. It's an age thing - politicians skew old and older people tend to have more aggressive foreign policy views than younger people do (at the moment).
Another reason is that they understand the political situation in the USA all too well. The USA does not have friends, or allies. The "special relationship" crap the UK government is fond of trotting out fools nobody, which is confirmed by polling. In the Congressional mindset there exists only two worlds, domestic and foreign. That means the USA won't even hesitate to apply the same brutal economic strategies it applies to Iran to other countries, if those countries were to step out of line. As FATCA rolls out parliaments around the world are learning this one the hard way and are being forced to change their own laws to avoid Iran's fate. The USA has announced to the world that you're either with them or against them, and if you're against them, you'll be treated no differently to any other "rogue state". If the sanctioned and destroyed institutions are systematically important European banks - no problem.
Understandably, European politicians do not want to go in front of their own people and say "We cannot implement this policy because the USA will impose crippling punishments on us automatically if we do", because that makes them seem weak and useless (which indeed they are). And they believe that even if a popular vote were to bring in such a policy, if it resulted in serious recession and job losses then they'd be punished for it. Whether they're right or not is hard to say. Much better to just ignore the elephant in the room, especially if they actually like the idea of seeming tough and strong and being the next Churchill.
The risk is that growing anti-Americanism (which as you observe, is in reality closer to anti-Washington-ism) will continue to be a blind spot for major political parties until it turns into a boiling over pot, just as concerns about immigration did. That leads to the possibility of parties with extremely radical policies starting to gain power, which history tells us is rarely a positive thing.
Re: (Score:2)
France and the UK spend a disproportionate amount of money on their militaries.
This is because France and England are merely 6 km apart.
Re: (Score:1)
>Europe has plenty enough military capability for its needs. France and the UK spend a disproportionate
>amount of money on their militaries. I really doubt military protection even crosses the
>minds of politicians in Europe.
Spoken like a true American. (And I don't even know if you are one.)
Europeans know what war is really like, and having lived through the last thousand years, they understand that it is peace which is the exception, and not war. If push ever comes to shove, Europe might win, but
Re:Will Europe contain the USA? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Brit who lives in central Europe. So, if you have a point, I'm not sure what it is.
Europe isn't it like it was in the first part of the 20th century. There are no former, broken empires having massive war reparations extracted from them right on Britain's doorstep. There are no charismatic leaders with radically nationalistic talk. Russia isn't going to invade Europe anytime soon. Neither is China. In the event that the world undergoes radical political change, there will be plenty of warning and time to engage in an arms race.
The country that has most extra-territorial control over Europe is the USA. Russia and China do not explicitly threaten or indeed engage in warfare of any kind against Europeans. The USA has actually passed laws that will automatically bankrupt any financial institution anywhere that does not comply with US law. If US law conflicts with local law, tough.
If there's ANY country that Europe might need to defend itself against in the forseeable future, it's the USA. Against military attack? Probably not. Against other forms of attack? It already happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Geographics fail. Georgia is in Western Asia, not Europe.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
> Russia was never a threat to Europe
Really !?
Germany and Czechoslovakia might disagree just for starters. I mean, Russia sure had their reasons to be nervous, but "never a threat" is a bizarre statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, memories. The banners at Greenham Common saying "Russkis take your nukeskis homeski". Maggie Thatcher sucking Gorbachev's cock. RAF Fylingdale, in Northwest Scotland, to cover the great circle route that was the likeliest approach path for missiles and bombers.
Re: (Score:2)
Public show. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all public show. Improve the security of the dam computers and stop employing American spies!
Re: (Score:2)
"don't forget to buy that lilac tutu for your daughter since her birthday is in 15 days oh btw her size in in stock at %location% which is currently the best place..
but thats a KIDS store and all my daughters are grown up
All your daughters the PUBLIC knows about are but...
oh right so dinner at the steak place tonight??"
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile in Europe, IIRC, when François Mitterand was once asked by a reporter: "Sir, is it true that you have an illegitimate daughter?", he responded: "Yes, and?", which I think is the only correct response for a politician.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious what you think Belgium could actually do to stop NSA spying? Pass a law against it, perhaps?
Alas, espionage (both sigint and humint) has been a part of every government in history, and it's not going to stop now. You can catch a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what you think Belgium could actually do to stop NSA spying?
Ban US companies from supplying equipment or running infrastructure. Similar to how the US is trying to ban Chinese products and companies from running things.
Pass a law against it, perhaps?
The NSA already breaks the law, so there is probably no need. Convicting or at least issuing arrest warrants for US citizens is actually surprisingly effective. As well as preventing employees of US companies from travelling to Europe (it would be an EU wide warrant/conviction) anyone associated with them could be stopped and questioned, and any compa
In other news... (Score:1, Funny)
...discovered evidence that the NSA has been listening in (Dutch) on the Belgacom network since 2011.
Meanwhile, the French, British, Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, several major drug cartels, Iceland, New Zealand, Germans, Australians... their taps on the same wires were left alone and unnoticed. Because everyone on the internet knows that only the NSA and those pesky American's ever spy on anyone else, because they're all signals intelligence virgins who just don't see the point in espionage when we're all just one big happy carebear family.
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I need to start tr
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, major drug cartels and especially Iceland have massive data centers that rival what the US has. Right. That must be why so many of the job postings for those with related skills are in Columbia and Iceland.
Look, we know that the NSA hires shills to mock all of us who are concerned with this stuff. You're probably not one of them. You probably just do it for free.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since drug cartels run multiple governments in Latin America, why not?
Israel, Russia and China certainly have a pretty high level of skill in this arena as well.
They must be laughing up their sleeves at the NSA. They would have taken Snowden out LONG ago.
Re: (Score:1)
What 'multiple governments' drug cartels really run in Latin America? Care to point out?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, major drug cartels and especially Iceland have massive data centers that rival what the US has. Right. That must be why so many of the job postings for those with related skills are in Columbia and Iceland.
Iceland is building a 50 to 70 acre data center [datacenterdynamics.com]. And they're hiring [ibtimes.com] tons.
The mexican drug cartel has a massive national wireless network [wfaa.com]. They're hiring too, but you have to apply in person; They don't take online resumes.
Look, we know that the NSA hires shills to mock all of us who are concerned with this stuff. You're probably not one of them. You probably just do it for free.
Well, you got one thing right: I do this for free. I suppose 1 out of 6 is better than your usual average though.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they discovered hacking would require significant financial and logistics means.
Not tagging onto the trans-atlantic cables with a hardware device. Hacking of computers.
"Our systems are so secure though! They couldn't have been hacked by teenagers! Only like... a rich and powerful bazillionare, or a government, or something, would b e able to break our shit! It has encryption!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the French, British, Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, several major drug cartels, Iceland, New Zealand, Germans, Australians... their taps on the same wires were left alone and unnoticed.
You're free to believe whatever crap you want, but there's no evidence these countries were spying in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how spying works - when you do it right.
USA = TERRORISTS (Score:4, Insightful)
We should shut down every relations with such hostile and aggressive country.
USA = LIBERATOR (Score:1)
Who will come to your aid the next time you're occupied? You're going to have a real problem in 30-50 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at what Europe does to people who oppose the USA. We're already occupied!
Re:USA = LIBERATOR (Score:4, Insightful)
Who will come to your aid the next time you're occupied? You're going to have a real problem in 30-50 years.
Learn history. The USA have liberated the pacific islands from the Japanese forces. The US did not liberate Europe. That was accomplished at over 80% by the soviets. The US played a very little part in the liberation of Europe and went on to gain a lot in the aftermath of the war (same as the soviets by the way).
If you think the US "participated" in the european theater out of the kindness of their hearts to aid their european bretheren I have the Brooklyn bridge to sell you along with the state of New York. Great deal !
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing one deranged silly-mustached dictator with a different deranged silly-mustached dictator isn't liberation, houghi.
Re: (Score:2)
Who will come to your aid the next time you're occupied?
The British, just like they usually do. And the Americans will turn up 3 years late, just like they usually do.
Re: (Score:1)
For people who don't speak dutch ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Netherlands?? (Score:3, Informative)
Why is this post tagged with 'netherlands'? Belgium hasn't been part of the netherlands since 1830 ... I know you lot are a bit retarded when it comes to history, but nearly 200 years is a pretty long time ..
Re: (Score:1)
I was going to ask the same question. What's more, to Belgians it's insulting to be associated with The Netherlands.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been asking for ethnic slurs against the phlems for years (rehashing an old Monty Python bit). Who knew all I had to do was call them Dutch.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about Belgium anyhow?
Anyone who likes chocolate or strange castles. I guess.
Yum, Belgian chocolate.
Re:Netherlands?? (Score:4, Informative)
A couple of reasons that many do care:
Belgium is in possession of 10-20 nuclear warhead under the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program.
NATO's Central Command is in Belgium.
The European Commssion is in Belgium.
The second largest container port in Europe is in Belgium.
Europe's second largest chemical plant is BASF in Belgium where they also have the HQ for their own banking operation which have enough financial power to influence currency exchange rates of a country by dumping for example the SEK.
Many of the worlds best beers are brewed in Belgium.
I hope for your sake that the there's truth to Thomas Gray's words "ignorance is bliss"
Re: (Score:1)
Who cares about Belgium anyhow?
Nobody but the Belgians and the EU, which has their offices located in that country. Oh, and the nations of Northern Africa, who have close ties to Belgium and use the national carrier as their trunk line. Oh, and many parts of the middle east who also use the same carrier. And people who like French (cut) Fries, French Toast, Belgian Waffles and Belgian Chocolates. And people who have family living there. And people whose megacorporations have offices there and are subject to their laws. And countrie
Re: (Score:2)
They speak Flemish, but it's often called Dutch because everybody has heard of Dutch and nobody wants to explain how it's basically the same but a little different.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some idiot with a poor knowledge of gerography doesn't realize that Dutch is spoken in countries other than the Netherlands?
Remember the Greeks (Score:5, Interesting)
The USA has got form here. Remember the Greek Vodafone hacks in 2004 - technically sophisticated and never traced, but available evidence pointed to the geographic region of the US Embassy in Athens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004 [wikipedia.org]–05
Asking for it... (Score:2)
Seriously, what do they expect, giving their country a name like that? [wikia.com] Of course they're going to piss people off!
Cyber (Score:1)
NSA's interest must be GRX and IPX (Score:1)
Belgacom is a main global provider of GRX and IPX connectivity, in layman's terms, the private IP networks that are used to transport voice, messaging and data traffic between Wireless network providers when their subscribers roam abroad. If they can hack into Belgacom, they can probably get access to upwards of 50% of global romaing traffic that they otherwise wouldn't see on the public internet taps they have around the place.
In Dutch, eh? (Score:3)
discovered evidence that the NSA has been listening in (Dutch) on the Belgacom network
So French speakers should be fine, right?
There is something I can't really get (Score:2)
They will be extradited, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also presume US government will extradite these criminals who were breaking all kinds of international (and domestic) laws, and were waging cyber warfare against another sovereign country.
After all, this is what US expects from others, so it would only be nice that they start following what they preach, eh?
United States of Corruption. That's what USA has became. Any 'moral high ground' that US had, on pretty much *any* issue, is simply gone.
It is beyond sad, a country we all looked up to some 20 years ago. Turned into complete shit :(
Re:Country spies on other country (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike the other recent revelations, this is actually the NSA's job.
Re:Country spies on other country (Score:5, Interesting)
well isn't breaking law abroad technically CIA's job? ..either way, the news is that some country is actually saying that "hey fuckers, it's not all right to break the law you wrote a contract not to break - also, you promised to send us people who would break these laws on our property if we asked for them so what the fuck guys??".
I mean, why the fuck should belgium honor american intellectual property rights for example if america doesn't honor even basic property rights?(hacking is messing with property with tangible damages, at least when usa is being hacked..)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, why the fuck should belgium honor american intellectual property rights for example if america doesn't honor even basic property rights?
And yet they do, and will continue to do so even in light of this discovery. How do they expect the US to respect their rights and sovereignty if they don't respect it themselves?
As an American, I'm ashamed of this sort of behavior, but I still don't understand why reasonably prosperous countries continue to take this shit from the US and still adopt US friendly laws domestically. The US is not going to invade Belgium, so why does Belgium enact policies that benefit the US interests over the interests of ac
Re: (Score:1)
Free ride on someone else's defense for 70 years and this is what you get.
Look on the bright side, think of how much money your parent's generation saved.
Re: (Score:2)
Free ride on someone else's defense for 70 years and this is what you get.
...in exchange for turning the blind eye on US gov't sponsored industrial espionage against EADS, Airbus, Astrium and the likes, why, thank you very much. We're not worthy...
Re: (Score:2)
EADS, Airbus, Astrium and the frog spooks being a bunch of virgins who would never bribe and/or spy to close a deal. That never happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike the other recent revelations, this is actually the NSA's job.
What is?
Performing actions that US govt sees as 'acts of war', against other, *allied*, country?
Great job.
Re: (Score:2)
> Performing actions that US govt sees as 'acts of war', against other, *allied*, country?
Well, the European Parliament has found that the CIA in conjunction with right-wing Europeans committed many different acts of terror -- acts killing and wounding hundreds of civilians -- on our own NATO allies during the 1980s in US gov't's pursuit of a strategy of tension [wikipedia.org].
So for the US gov't to do this would be nothing new. :-(
Re:Country spies on other country (Score:5, Insightful)
As an american citizen, I do not want them doing this.
What is the point of even acting like we have diplomacy if we subvert the very principals of the diplomatic process in the first place?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
As an american citizen, I do not want them doing this.
What is the point of even acting like we have diplomacy if we subvert the very principals of the diplomatic process in the first place?
Because they are doing it right back at us. If you truly believe that the USA is the only one spying you really need to wake up. Every country spies and when you get caught they make it out like it's a huge deal. While at the same time they feed this info to their operatives saying "Why didn't we think of this already!!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they are doing it right back at us.
So continue the cycle of pointless spying and warmongering! I thought the USA was supposed to be exceptional, not some loser country that just continues doing 'evil' because everyone else is doing it...
If you truly believe that the USA is the only one spying you really need to wake up.
No one ever said that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, please read "The Art of War," the author tries to explain in very simple terms to the reader why Spies are essential to successful governing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Art of War is so out of date that it's hilarious. You have to interpret it with a very specific dialogue to try to convince yourself it applies to modern day anything.
meanwhile, its' warfare. Which is not what we're talking about.
You may as well have said to quote the bible, because you'd be just as accurate.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What does it matter? Just because others are doing it doesn't mean we should do it too. How about not spying on those we're not at war with or hostile towards?
Re: (Score:1)
This has to be a troll thread.
We would not be here today if at ANY TIME in the past, we followed the policy you just stated. And there's no way to go back now. Just be happy for your freedoms.
Peace, love and all that jazz to fellow humans, but leave the shit work to the politicians and spooks that love it. They keep us as comfortable as we are today. I hate some government policies, but after realizing you can't do a damned thing to change the system, just kick back, pop ope
Re: (Score:1)
We would not be here today if at ANY TIME in the past, we followed the policy you just stated.
I highly doubt that, but greetings to you, warmonger. Now, present some evidence that is enough to prove that spying on non-hostile countries (and even allies) is a good thing.
Just be happy for your freedoms.
I guess I should also be happy that the TSA molests people at airports, yes? After all, they claim to be doing it for our own safety, and if that stops the big, evil terrorists, then it must be good! Just be happy for your freedoms; ignore the violation of people's rights.
Peace, love and all that jazz to fellow humans, but leave the shit work to the politicians and spooks that love it.
I'd rather leave as little as possible to those worthless gover
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and saying that must spy on everyone because they might be planning to attack us isn't going to convince me of a single thing.
Re: (Score:1)
I've been locked up. I hate those motherfuckers, but I also just stay the fuck out of their way. I will leave a point-by-point rebuttal to another user who cares, I got beers to drink.
They can strip search me all they want, if they like lookin' at balls and assholes, and when the pigs ask, I got their papers. Simple. Stay real, always. Ever vigilant; to be aware is to be alive.
Re:Country spies on other country (Score:4, Insightful)
Historically such things have benefited a fairly small number of people, usually a few well connected corporations and political parties. On the other hand it tends to increase ill will between countries and that usually gets taken out on travelers and small business interactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Spying is a product of and benefit to: government (keeps them in power), corporations (keeps them making money) and the media (who dance around and cheer everyone on while making money).
Spying has no benefit to the average citizen.
Interesting (and humorous) take on this by Russell Brand in The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/sep/13/russell-brand-gq-awards-hugo-boss [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off
Sincerely,
The rest of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Not only should every country do espionage, they should also do counter-espionage.
No contradiction there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Government of one nation spies on telecom operations of a friendly power, without notice. Not yawn. Diplomatic incident.
Re:Country spies on other country (Score:4, Informative)
And Israel spies on the US more than anybody else. It's hardly a shocker that the US would be spying on Belgium, I'm sure we're spying on pretty much everybody.
Doesn't necessarily make it right, but it's unrealistic to believe that they aren't spying on us as well. It's how international relations work. Perhaps someday that will change, but until then, nobody can allow others to do that without also joining in.
Re:Country spies on other country (Score:5, Informative)
It's hardly a shocker that the US would be spying on Belgium, I'm sure we're spying on pretty much everybody.
The EU government is located in Brussels . . . in Belgium. So if they are spying in Belgium, they are spying on all the EU countries that have offices there.
No surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While it is probably true that every nation maintains some degree of spying, nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the world. Get some degree of understanding please.
It is true for example that the USA broke Japanese codes in 1941. That hardly compares with rifling the transactions of everyone in Japan!
It is probably a good idea to have some spying but total information awareness isn't exactly rational. It has to demonstrate a high degree of insanty to want it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Go away George, go paint some more bathtub pictures.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? Obama never promised to stop spying on foreign nations and such a policy would be completely irresponsible.
Then again, you're a troll so what do I care what you think.
Re: (Score:1)
Obama never promised to stop spying on foreign nations and such a policy would be completely irresponsible.
Not if those countries aren't hostile towards us.
Re:Surely they mean 2001 (Score:4, Insightful)
While your post is a bit trollish, there is a ring of truth.
Obama was supposedly going to be this guy who would mend relations with foreign entities (frankly I felt embarrassed for America when he does those stupid bows to foreign leaders) and really the only thing he has done to improve America's image is just get elected in the first place due entirely to the fact that most people just assume he's going to do something good for them. Hence he gets the first "Nobel Peace Prize for Absolutely Nothing At All"(tm).
Other than doing nothing more than simply winning the election, he's actually rather made things worse.
Re:Surely they mean 2001 (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama was supposedly going to be this guy who would mend relations with foreign entities (frankly I felt embarrassed for America when he does those stupid bows to foreign leaders) and really the only thing he has done to improve America's image is just get elected in the first place due entirely to the fact that most people just assume he's going to do something good for them. Hence he gets the first "Nobel Peace Prize for Absolutely Nothing At All"(tm).
Other than doing nothing more than simply winning the election, he's actually rather made things worse.
Obama is what happens when you have a binary political system. The other guy wanted to steal everything that wasn't nailed down and give it to the rich. Obama said he didn't. The other guy wanted to attack and occupy as many other countries as possible, to show how tough he was. Obama said he didn't. The other guy was an idiot who couldn't talk in complete sentences. Obama was a great talker. The other guy was a rich white dude who'd always had a silver spoon in his mouth. Obama was a black guy who'd been a community organizer.
We believed Obama was a better choice. He likely was. We thought that all things equal, it would be great to have a black guy win the post, that it would improve relations between whites and "others". It probably did, though nowhere near as much as we hoped. We wanted to believe that Obama would be a big improvement, and some people actually got sucked into believing that he would be. He wasn't. After eight years of the dumbest and worst president in American history, the guy who attacked Iraq and flew the economy into the ground, we wanted something better. We got it. But "better" is relative.
When you have to choose between dreadful and not-quite-as-bad with a few good points, you do the best you can. The fact that the result isn't great doesn't mean that the other choice wouldn't have been worse.
Re: (Score:1)
If that's what the US considers "left wing" -- well, I think some people should study world politics a bit more.
The entire point here is that people saw Obama as "not as right wing as Bush". Nobody voted for the guy from the Communist Party; very few voted Libertarian; nobody voted to increase government and social programs or to switch from a penal system to a correction system.
In fact, the monologue basically said "people voted for Obama because he didn't have Bush's track record." That doesn't sound ve
Re: (Score:1)
Awfully strange place to clip my comment....
You're talking like it's a binary issue again, and not a 2-D continuum (there's really a front-of-center and back-of-center as well)
There are Americans who believe all sorts of things. Both the Dems and Reps are right of center on many policies, and left of center on a few. But the American people as a whole tend to be slightly-right-of-centrist, and lately have been voting against the party whose policies they want to prevent from being executed.
How you could r
Re: (Score:3)
By and large he did mend things though. The Chinese absolutely love him and he's done a far better job of mending things with the Europeans than either McCain or Romney would have.
As for the Nobel Peace Prize, signalling to the world that a black man can be elected President of a nation that's mainly populated by black people is significant. It's never happened before and it's something worth recognizing.
Compared to the Nobel Peace Prizes given out in 1994 it made at least some sense. Giving the Peace Prize
Re: (Score:2)
International agreements have 2 parts, if one of the parts misbehave that agreement could be nullified. The other countries could just leave the dollar as international trade standard. They can reject all US IP claims (if they as policy of state ignores the IP of foreing citizens/companies/etc, they well can do the same). Can do trade embargos (US love to do them, the rest can do it too). Can loose ties with US and move to i.e. China as main market. And, of course, can cut dependence on US based internet se
Re: (Score:2)
The other countries could just leave the dollar as international trade standard.
They'd have to sell off most of their US assets first, and do it carefully so as not to give the game away. Don't want to crash an economy you're heavily invested in.
Re: (Score:2)