Your amazing reasons didn't even come close to proving why we need data on everyone. Why could it not be done with standard warrants? Why must everyone be spied on?You stated that there was NO reason for the U.S. to collect FISA data and NO reason for it to be shared with other governments. I gave you two very good reasons, and your continued inability to address them is noted.
Collateral damage is supposed to be relative? So then you're fine with innocent lives being taken. Noted.I wouldn't criticize the use of bombing in WWII; we lacked the ability to strike at industrial centers with any more accuracy than we had. It was a total war effort for both sides. I would criticize the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, along with most of our strategy in Vietnam (until Abrams took over), as needlessly destructive and counterproductive. That criticism is included in the paragraph you so blithely skipped over. Collateral Damage is supposed to be relative to the military advantage gained in order to be lawful under the Geneva Conventions, and I continue to support applying that standard.
The military carries out the actions. It's like blaming the mob boss for the crime and not the hitman.However, the bombing targets in Vietnam, the use of large-scale aerial power in WWII, and event the use of drone-strikes in Pakistan now are not military decisions - they are political decisions taken by our civilian leadership. If you wanted me to criticize something that our political leadership has done with regards to its' control over the military, you should have asked for that instead. The military does not decide when or where or to an extent how to go to war.
Your history is wrong. There was massive increase in protectionism prior to WWI. As for the Civil War, that is a little bit different, don't you think? Lincoln felt that the South had betrayed him and so invaded. That and consider the lost tax revenue.an easy argument that is given the lie by history. there was plenty of trade between the north and the south before our Civil War, and between Germany and Britain before WWI. Trade reduces the chances of conflict, it nowhere near ensures its absence.
It's tough for me to defend a guy who sees the loss of innocent lives as worth it and the spying on all Americans as necessary and good.Of course you believe that. Because you hate America.
(see how stupid the ad hominem is?)
Tell me, was the loss of 100,000 lives in Iraq because of the embargo, as Susan Rice put it, worth it?