Slashdot Mirror
While the U.S. and Iran Negotiate, War Commences In Cyberspace
An anonymous reader writes "A series of reports shows that the U.S. and Israel are engaged in a cyber war with Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons. Oddly enough, at the same time, the United States and others nations are trying to negotiate with Iran. As America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences. Such ideas could not be further from from truth."
As crazy as this may sound, talking with each other is usually the best option.
All Iran needs to do to win this cyberwar is just unplug the internet. Problem solved.
This isn't 'Nam there are rules
No one is this world is that stupid who doesn't chose to be. Even a four year old knows that N=1 sets a precedent if your cheeks are chubby and you engage the waterworks.
I wish people would learn history, especially reporters who are very influential in shaping readers' views. Quote: "Thereâ(TM)s a strong likelihood that the next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyberattack that cripples our power systems, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental system," said Leon Panetta, the U.S. defense secretary. In the case of Iran, it seems, it was the United States playing the role of 1941 Japan.
The 1941 attack did not happen in a vacuum. The U.S. had already been at war against Japan for several years, bombing & killing their soldiers in China. Just like we're doing with Iran now (except via the internet).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences
Story: Overrated.
Editors: Useless.
Two kids are sitting in the back of the car. Jimmy puts his hand over on Sally's side. Sally pokes it with her Hacker Barbie. Jimmy pulls Barbie's hair. Sally smacks Jimmy's Bob the Builder book. Jimmy tosses Bob the Builder Book at Sally's face. Sally starts bleeding profusely from the nose and punches Jimmy in the Jimmies. Jimmy doubles over with pain, but retains the presence of mind to elbow Sally in the throat. Sally, gasping for air gouges Jimmy's left eye out.
Mom asks "Are you kids fighting back there?"
"No, Mom!"
"No, Mom!"
Somebody set us up the Stuxnet!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Is it just me or does anyone actually support the actions of our government besides the government?
Tech-based terror threats are increasingly raising concerns in Washington, and FBI Director Robert Mueller testified this week that such threats are among the most serious facing the U.S.
FoxNews - March 09, 2012
us-faces-increasing-threat-cyberattacks-by-terrorists
Now I understand why the FBI Director testified in front of congress warning of future cyber attacks!!!!
"As America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences. Such ideas could not be further from from truth."
Oh please. The French have been doing this kind of thing since before the United States even had a name for it. It's called industrial espionage, and they're so good at it that the executives of major companies are frequently told to never use the fax machines in hotels, or the phones, or the internet (unless it is an encrypted VPN), because the French government aggressively works to steal industrial secrets from other countries and provide it to their own businesses. People think because you add the word "Internet" to a social problem, that suddenly makes it new and special... le sigh.
All the internet did was make it faster and more efficient; Which is (wait for it) what computers in general do to socioeconomic processes.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The USA is beginning to look an awful like an awful country run by despotic psychopaths.
The complete history of the endless war over the last 60 years has conclusively proven the USA to be quite evil.
Each action is seemingly taken as a response to provocation, but it is very clear that it openly engages in hostilities well and truly before any open warfare. Being the bully and then pretending the victim is the reson d'être. Pearl harbour, Vietnam, desert storm, 911 and now this. The USA had very deliberately stuck its dick in another counties ass, claims to be the wronged when the victim retaliates, then mobilises the very next week. It is prepared for war instantly. it is premeditated and very deliberately provocative.
The school bully uses this same method. They invariably go to jail or end up in a shit job. Soon, perhaps, the world will react against this menace.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad found playing FarmVille.
Ayatollah Khamenei utters, "Bastards!!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The statement "America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences." is absurd. Iran can't do anything about it because they're Iran, not because it's a cyber attack. They already have made threats to other countries, they have been building weapons, so there's not much left to do. They can't outright attack us in the "real world" because they don't have an army capable of it and we'd fuck them up. Just because we attacked them digitally doesn't really mean anything special. If we instead randomly dropped a missile on one of their government buildings, they could do just as much nothing about it as if it were a digital attack so that's not the determining factor. Their options in both cases are to go "rawr rawr rawr" about it (paraphrased) or attack America and get their country leveled a day later.
Preventing a theocracy from getting a nuclear reaction is inarguably a good thing. Additionally, put it in the context of every single nation being involved in corporate hacking. Instead of doing hacking to make money, the way China or every other nation does, it's to prevent theocracies from developing nuclear weapons.
In before "the US is the biggest theocracy of all!"
Oh, and this is a dupe of an article from a week ago.
"Cyber-war" relies on the victim deliberately choosing to connect systems to the internet which should not be connected.
Fuck shit up and build some "herd immunity".
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
These new "cyber" offenses are nothing more than gold old fashion intelligence/counterintelligence "on the internet". Really, we did much worse to the Russians during the cold war (We even used a hacked program to blow up an oil pipeline facility).. And they actually had real, working nukes pointed at us.
And that's just the stuff we know! In reality, there were probably nearly full scale armed conflicts the public still does not know about.
a scientific approach to why we keep doing this "lets fight a war every 4 years in the middle east" baloney. Some have speculated its a doctrine incepted by the former president carter, others say its driven simply by the military industrial complex, but im really curious to see if anyone can come up with a reason why we have to erect a punching bag like clockwork each presidency. both sides might bicker on finances and the budget, but both bob their heads in agreeance each time an expensive protracted excursion into war comes along without much dissonance.
The fact that the united states needlessly and violently attacks the middle east whenever it sees fit was something that Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki touched upon. OBL actually had the nerve to insist we stop doing it as a condition upon which he would stop attacking america. It was a very reasonable request; a negotiated ceasefire.
Nothing doing so it seems. We partner up with the only nation in the region that seems to vitriolically hate iran and start coming up with the same clever chicanery we used to sabotage gas well computer control systems in soviet russia. Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism and hasnt signed any of the nuclear treaties we're shoving toward iran, but they havent made it into anyones axis of evil. Why do they get to have nuclear power and iran, a much larger state by population alone, doesnt?
Good people go to bed earlier.
I was taught in school, long ago, that only the United States Congress could "declare" war. As far as i can recall that has not happened in a long long time (like WW2), meaning, the USA is NOT currently at "war" with any other nation. So how the hell can "acts of war" occur without a "declaration of war" in effect. Makes me think all of Washington has completely failed to follow its our rules, that "we the people" wrote, and they should all be prosecuted as mass murderers. Starting with the president and working our way down till they are all executed and replaced with people who will honor the constitution. No wonder the rest of the planet is totally pissed off. I am going to Brazil, who's with me?
Which isn't exactly a new idea - both stealing secrets and sabotage.
The school bully uses this same method. They invariably go to jail or end up in a shit job. Soon, perhaps, the world will react against this menace.
"The world" is not a unified entity and will not react against injustice any more than it has in the past. However, as a US citizen, I am quite concerned that this will be one of the things that provokes Iran to retaliate against Israel or some other ally and suck us into yet another stupid war.
Preventing a theocracy from getting a nuclear reaction is inarguably a good thing. Additionally, put it in the context of every single nation being involved in corporate hacking. Instead of doing hacking to make money, the way China or every other nation does, it's to prevent theocracies from developing nuclear weapons.
In before "the US is the biggest theocracy of all!"
Oh, and this is a dupe of an article from a week ago.
Fixing India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal should be the number one priority for the international community.
Iran is a game changer the same way NK is a game changer. No real game changer.
But if India goes nuclear on Pakistan or viceversa we will find ourselves in a world of hurt.
Funny how Pakistan, a country that finances and supports terrorism is given a free pass to having a nuclear arsenal. Yeah nothing could ever go wrong eh ?
Like an axis of evil. Good job they pointed the finger first.
So, we weren't the victims at Pearl Harbor?
Sure, we flexed a little muscle to open them up to the world. But they made out like bandits on the deal - came out of it a significant power.
We beat them to the punch at taking the Philippines from Spain. They didn't want us playing in their neighborhood. Spain can complain. Japan cannot.
We flexed a little more muscle to convince them not to do anything stupid (and ports around the world benefited from our $$).
We took advantage of them and the Russians after they both came to us to help with their little spat. (This was the biggest dick move we made, but they did it to themselves.)
And we didn't sell them oil in WWII.
Prior to WWII we hadn't fired a single shot in their direction. And after WWII we rebuilt them and provided for their defense. Yeah. What big assholes we are...
Nothing unusual. This is Standard Operating Procedure. The negotiators negotiate while the warriors wage war.
The complete history of the endless war over the last 60 years has conclusively proven the USA to be quite evil.
Yes, damn them for their bloodless cyberwar that is preventing the Islamic Republic of Iran from getting their god-given nuclear weapons.
No, no. You're overlooking the true criminals of the world: Europe. Their complete history of genocide has yet to face justice.
TFA is nothing but speculation, and quotes from folks that have bones to pick or are outright, simply known liars. (Iran)
This submission, and green-lighting is more whitewash like we had here last week.
Move along, nothing to see.
If by "not US Military" you mean "composed of pilots from the United States Army (USAAF), Navy (USN), and Marine Corps (USMC)" (source). And by "civilian relief operations and humanitarian roles only" you mean "trained in Burma before the American entry into World War II with the mission of defending China against Japanese forces" (same source). Then yes, the Flying Tigers were just civilian humanitarians.
While the Flying Tigers first combat was after Pearl Harbor, singling out this fact ignores a lot of American preparations for war with Japan. The Japanese attack of a military outpost on Hawaii was not the surprise that Hollywood movies make it out to be.
The American's negotiating, concurrently with initiating Internet attacks on Iran, is also not a big surprise. Actions and talk are often unrelated. Whether the attacks are ethical or warranted, and their long-term effects, is perhaps also a worthwhile discussion.
Preventing a theocracy from getting a nuclear reaction is inarguably a good thing.
This is rubbish. You are using a premise as its own justification. Israel is not in danger from an Iranian nuclear attack. Such an attack would be complete suicide for Iran. At best, Iran wants to play the game of using the Bomb as a political weapon as does everyone else. It isn't e very credible game, given the force asymmetry between them and Israel. Israelis know Iran is not a substantial threat, as some of their intelligence officials have pointed out. The question is, why are Israel and the US conducting open hostilities against Iran, including operations by US Special Forces on Iranian territory and support of terrorist attacks in Iran by Mujahedin e Khalq as well as Flame, Stuxnet, etc.?
In the past one could have speculated that they help maintain the illusion of great instability in the Middle East, which helps justify huge financial support of the US and international arms industry (where Israel is an important player, BTW) as well as high petroleum spot market prices (the traditional reason to ensure that there is always conflict somewhere vaguely near our political allies' oil fields, but not too near). Oddly, though, oil prices have fallen in the recent past, presumably due to unusually weak demand (in spite of that all-time favorite: "The Summer Driving Season"). Military spending has not diminished, however, and in the US Republican politicians are constantly trying to take military spending "off the table" when budget cutting activities heat up.
Frankly, I never am able to figure out why such things occur until well after the fact when the other shoe drops and it becomes clear who is making the big bucks out of the deal. Make no mistake, though. This is about money, one way or the other. The "Israel is in mortal danger from the crazy mullahs" scam is pure horse shit. I guess we'll have to wait for Steve Coll to quietly write a book 10 years from now with the details.
Funny how Pakistan, a country that finances and supports terrorism is given a free pass to having a nuclear arsenal
You really have to wonder about that. Since the 1980's they have supported a wide variety of Sunni extremists, often in direct military conflict with US soldiers. Iran has never done that. Why then is Pakistan considered an ally and given billions in military aid even though it has been a Saudi-financed supporter of active enemies of the US for decades? Why is Iran the big enemy even though it has done far less direct harm to the US or our interests? It is an opaque war between powerful bands of international mobsters that drape themselves with sappy pseudo-patriotic treacle, which is unfortunately swallowed whole by the news media and their vast audience.
The USA is beginning to look an awful like an awful country run by despotic psychopaths.
The complete history of the endless war over the last 60 years has conclusively proven the USA to be quite evil.
Each action is seemingly taken as a response to provocation, but it is very clear that it openly engages in hostilities well and truly before any open warfare. Being the bully and then pretending the victim is the reson d'être. Pearl harbour, Vietnam, desert storm, 911 and now this. The USA had very deliberately stuck its dick in another counties ass, claims to be the wronged when the victim retaliates, then mobilises the very next week. It is prepared for war instantly. it is premeditated and very deliberately provocative.
The school bully uses this same method. They invariably go to jail or end up in a shit job. Soon, perhaps, the world will react against this menace.
I have to say, you get originality points for being the first I've seen to label the US as "quite evil" for surreptitiously fighting against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany before Pearl Harbor and, uh, I guess the "official" start of hostilities? Maybe if you took your naivete-colored glasses off you'd realize maybe it isn't such a bad thing.
Seriously? Desert Storm (and the 1991 Persian Gulf War) was evil? I suppose you think Kuwait deserved to be invaded?
There's not a big evil conspiracy here - despite what you obviously believe - since about the 1980s, the United States military has been ready to fight a war (or two) in a week's notice in response to world events because (*gasp*) that's what they train to do. That's the point of having an all-volunteer professional armed forces - to have much better trained and prepared soldiers ready to fight. They wargame scenarios against real world potential enemies constantly. Their official doctrine is to be able to fight two regional wars at the same time.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, and even Russian govs. have been doing this for WELL OVER 10 years. And so far, we have done little.
So, yes, this is relatively without consequences.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sigh.
And yet not a comment out of you that China, North Korea, Russia, AND YES, IRAN, has been doing this for the last decade.
Yet, twits like you scream bloody murder when the west finally sits up and says that we need to KNOW what is going on, rather than go in with guns blazing.
So, let me guess. You are working for the Chinese MSS?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Funny how Pakistan, a country that finances and supports terrorism is given a free pass to having a nuclear arsenal
You really have to wonder about that. Since the 1980's they have supported a wide variety of Sunni extremists, often in direct military conflict with US soldiers. Iran has never done that. Why then is Pakistan considered an ally and given billions in military aid even though it has been a Saudi-financed supporter of active enemies of the US for decades?
Because of history and geopolitics, which you need to read up on. Because India used to be much more closely aligned with the so-called "non-aligned" countries and the Soviet Union in the days of the Cold War. Because Pakistan actively helped the US out with the mujahedeen when they were the "good guys" fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Because Pakistan used to be run by a military that maintained close ties with the US military with liaisons and training of Pakistani officers in the US. They were considered once about as allied as Egypt or Turkey in the 1990s, and Turkey is a fellow NATO member. Because if there was going to be geopolitical pressure for an "Islamic bomb" (and there certainly was), said military-run and secular-leaning Pakistan could maybe be the place for it, and show the rest of the Islamic world a path for integration and modernization.
How times change in 20 years. I would argue (like you do) that Pakistan is going to be a major, if not the major, exporter of Sunni Islamic militant extremism for the near future. Of course, the tough question is this: is it better to try to bribe, er, convince through diplomacy and aid for Pakistan to help combat extremism or is it better to say "fuck'em", write them off, continue picking off al Qaeda targets as they pop up and wait for a country with known nuclear weapons to descend into chaos as their poorly trained conscript armed forces battle a well-financed and well-motivated home grown extremist movement?
Why is Iran the big enemy even though it has done far less direct harm to the US or our interests? It is an opaque war between powerful bands of international mobsters that drape themselves with sappy pseudo-patriotic treacle, which is unfortunately swallowed whole by the news media and their vast audience.
Here's a better set of questions. Why is Iran developing a secretive nuclear weapons program, enriching uranium to weapons-grade mixes that aren't needed for civilian power production in secret underground facilities run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? All of this, while they're signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? They've basically created their own version of the Manhattan Project, and are trying to pass it off with a bald-faced lie that its for "civilian peaceful purposes only". Err, ok. And let's not discount the activities that Iran does through proxy that directly work against US interests in the region. Hezbollah in Lebanon is armed and trained by two main countries, Syria and Iran, and fights against both a secularized, modernized Lebanon and peace with Israel. Iran supplied advanced IEDs, other weaponry and training to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq that were fighting the US and US-backed forces before they agreed to more or less integrate with the political process. I'm pretty sure giving away armor-piercing IED technology for the express purpose of killing US soldiers in Iraq falls into the category of "working directly against our interests".
And finally, never discount a huge motivator behind Iran being one of the enemies of the United States: the government of Iran wants TO BE an enemy of the United States. The theocracy/military complex running Iran is not stupid. Its economy is stagnant, at best. The young people of Iran, given a choice, would clearly want to move Iran in a different direction. (Hence the populist Spring that was bloodily suppressed in Iran). What's the best way for Iran to distract its people from domesti
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
When will Microsoft be investigating and taking legal action against the government who forged their cert.
Is it even safe to run Windows if Microsoft isn't willing to put their corporate foot down on things like this?
Won't they be held liable for problems that occur when this happens if they don't follow up on this stuff and sue the shady governments involved?
Preventing a theocracy from getting a nuclear reaction is inarguably a good thing.
This is rubbish. You are using a premise as its own justification. Israel is not in danger from an Iranian nuclear attack.
QED. I can just as justifiably say that Israel is not in danger from an Iranian nuclear attack until Iran feels like it has plausible deniability. After all, if Stuxnet and other acts of industrial sabotage (presuming, for the moment, almost certainly rightly that Israel and the US were behind it) are acts of war, then what do you call Iran funding and providing weapons and training for Hezbollah, who has probably killed more Israeli soldiers than any other armed militant group in the Middle East in the last 20 years?
And if Iran can wave "plausible deniability" around its proxy war with Israel through Hezbollah, what happens when Hezbollah smuggles and detonates an atomic weapon in northern Israel that was given to them by "an Act of Allah" in the next blowup over the Lebanese/Israeli border? Do they need "undeniable" proof that Iran was behind it before nuking Tehran in retaliation? Should they nuke Beirut and presumably a lot of moderate Sunni and Christian Lebanese that had nothing to do with Hezbollah? Or should they assume, like you seem to be, that if Iran has obtained the Bomb in the Middle East and Israel is struck by one, that Iran has "committed suicide"?
Such an attack would be complete suicide for Iran. At best, Iran wants to play the game of using the Bomb as a political weapon as does everyone else. It isn't e very credible game, given the force asymmetry between them and Israel. Israelis know Iran is not a substantial threat, as some of their intelligence officials have pointed out. The question is, why are Israel and the US conducting open hostilities against Iran, including operations by US Special Forces on Iranian territory and support of terrorist attacks in Iran by Mujahedin e Khalq as well as Flame, Stuxnet, etc.?
See above. Maybe, just maybe, delaying the Iranian nuclear weapons program through sabotage is preferable to hoping and praying that they don't slip a weapon to Hezbollah or another proxy group to use.
In the past one could have speculated that they help maintain the illusion of great instability in the Middle East, which helps justify huge financial support of the US and international arms industry (where Israel is an important player, BTW) as well as high petroleum spot market prices (the traditional reason to ensure that there is always conflict somewhere vaguely near our political allies' oil fields, but not too near). Oddly, though, oil prices have fallen in the recent past, presumably due to unusually weak demand (in spite of that all-time favorite: "The Summer Driving Season"). Military spending has not diminished, however, and in the US Republican politicians are constantly trying to take military spending "off the table" when budget cutting activities heat up.
Frankly, I never am able to figure out why such things occur until well after the fact when the other shoe drops and it becomes clear who is making the big bucks out of the deal. Make no mistake, though. This is about money, one way or the other. The "Israel is in mortal danger from the crazy mullahs" scam is pure horse shit. I guess we'll have to wait for Steve Coll to quietly write a book 10 years from now with the details.
Keep blaming the Republicans - obviously the Democrats and Obama will come and change US policies! Oh wait. I said this in another comment, and I'll say it here - the Iranian theocracy WANTS to be in conflict with the US. They just don't want to turn it into a hot war if at all possible. They can only get away with oppressing their own people and politically cracking down on them if they have someone external to blame it on. If t
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Sally starts bleeding profusely from the nose and punches Jimmy in the Jimmies.
Oh no you didn't.
Preventing a theocracy from getting a nuclear reaction is inarguably a good thing.
What country are you talking about? I know, Israel. And yes, Israel is forbidden to develop nuclear weapons. So the UN is playing favourites. It's not difficult to guess for whom.
If "the US is the biggest theocracy of all", then this point-scoring will end badly. North Korea isn't a theocracy but the US plays nice with them.
And they do a pretty goddamn good job of it.
Kuwait did not deserve to be invaded.
But who armed Iraq in the first place and helped a crazy person hang on to power for so long?
America arms various mad dogs in various parts of the world, and acts as the victim or the good guy when something backfires. You guys wanted to play cold war games with USSR, using others as your pawns.
After the cold war ended, your pawns grew teeth and have started biting your ass. Rightly or wrongly, the leaks are stating that America is involved with cyverwarfare now. Just remember that this battlefield does not require you to have expensive equipment and people with lots of training. Anyone can run port scans and scripts. You only need a couple of hackers to cause mayham 1000s of miles away. And with government backing, you can expect it to be alot more then just a couple of hackers.
Hope you all enjoy getting dragged into more battlefronts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
Why didn't the US go to war in 1937?
"you are already dealing with an entity that is not holding to their agreement (nuclear non-proliferation)"
That would be the USA, right?
Good expositions, this one and the one above. I don't blame Republicans exclusively, BTW. Outside of the usual menu of hot-button issues the differences between Republicans and Democrats are relatively subtle and primarily rhetorical.
I agree that it is not in the interests of Iran to turn all of this into a hot war. On our side, though, there seems to be quite a bit of motivation to go that way, not least because there will be a lot of money to be made in various venues.
A proxy bomb set off by Iran-supported extremists would quickly be attributed to Iran, and they would suffer verily for it. I can't see it in their interest to do something like that. Nuclear explosives are not military weapons, they are political weapons for most countries that currently possess them. Iran is a case in point, as is N Korea. They can't use them without risking a speedy and effective end-of-regime event. That is arguably not the case for Israel. If they were to use tactical nuclear weapons outside of significant population centers in a context where they could argue some kind of imminent existential threat (a rather far-fetched scenario, really), they might "get away with it," albeit with enormous political and diplomatic cost inside and outside. Even that would likely result in significant political turmoil in Israel, amounting to partial or total regime change anyway. The point being that the use of nuclear weapons is so fraught with peril for the aggressor that there is an enormous disincentive.
I was a kid when Iran held US embassy personnel hostage. I didn't care then, and I don't care now. Between that incident and now Iran has never entered my personal radar screen. Iranians I have met seem pleasant enough. Incidental encounters with their history seem like they're pretty accomplished and cultured. Kudos and all that. But I really could not care less if they got nuclear weapons. They'd probably sit on them and do nothing. Why would they attack Israel with them? Israel stole American nuclear know-how and fissile material a long time ago. (Nobody here threw a hissy fit about that.) So they'd instantly crater Iran.
Israel, on the other hand, is constantly siphoning billions of my tax dollars away that they use to dehumanize Palestinians and other non-Hebrew speaking persons in the Middle East. They warp the foreign policy of my country toward an ENTIRE REGION. They insult the president and vice-president of my country with impugnity. And all the while they're busy as beavers implementing the Jewish equivalent of shariah law, using my tax dollars.
Well, I know who I'd rather be friends with. Or at least on speaking terms with. Answer: none of them. Really. None of them. Don't care. Don't want my tax dollars going to any of them. Fuck you/have a nice life/fuck off.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
I think you meant: "Such ideas could not be *farther* from from truth"