even the european nationstate to cooperate. we will see much more collective defense efforts in europe in the coming years. now ask me about there could about there could be a good ath advised the prime minister to participate in your councils in december. i would refrain from interfering with european decisions on who they want to invite in european council. finally, it's a success story. the lesson learned that very close nato and individual players can actually achieve allied. and i wonder through the possibility that based on these lessons learned, it would be worthwhile to play maritime assets in other turns of the world to an international effort to ensure free and open ceilings because piracy seem to be able to a marriage and other parts of the world. thank you. >> i would like to get to the floor and someone who wants to commend your remarks on the good relations between nato and the e.u. and the need for the division of labor on the floor. >> thank you very much, chairman. i'm delighted to see you here come the secreta

baker, do you agree china as a nationstate is that only involved in hacking into u.s. databases, banks stealing intellectual property, is that a fair statement? >> yes, i would agree. >> could you give me two pages of why you say yes and i'll take it to the chinese ambassador and ask them to give me a response. >> octavio about 100 pages sir. >> which will be consolidated. >> absolutely. comments company has done the most feared >> breccia? >> russia is harder to identify as a country. >> would you say china is number one? >> china is the number one and my country doubles in size every year. >> china by far in terms of volume is the most aggressive. >> who was second? >> there is a battle for second. >> in the top five. >> at alliance for safe harbors. middle eastern organizations emerging. china first, russia's second but my opinion the rules of engagement between russia and america is almost like we worked it out. russians only hacker government. trainees are like a tank in a cornfield and there's an enormous gap between china first, russia's second but there's compe

a normal were setting to usually rely on a nationstate that somehow yields and says okay, it's over,and we will be responsible for keeping our people out of the conflict. and it may be difficult someday to know whether the war on terror is over him but because he cannot ascertain that something has been concluded does not mean that it's never possible to ascertain that it's still going on. especially if individuals or at the core center of it or involved in it purport that it is still going on. and maybe hearken back to some of my university of chicago economics training, i ask myself who should do the rest either of a premature -- or a prolonged detention? and i think any setting like we're in, the people have chosen a war that doesn't have clear boundaries and have decided to benefit from not wearing uniforms and have decided to benefit from the absence of compliance with international law should not necessarily be relieved of the consequences of that and able to impose the risk of premature release on society generally. so i think antonin scalia and one of his decisions, he pointe

it is people who are radical and determined to oppose the concept of the nationstate and to impose theirws on the world. it is, people think when you say it's a war on terror that it is a war and it will be one with bullets. it isn't going to be one with bullets. it's more like the cold war. it's going to take decades. and we do not today, we're not even competing in the ideological space as we did against communism. and it's because people do not want to be seen as against a religion. the american people are not against a religion. if there's anything that is always in our country is that we are tolerant of all religions. and yet there is reluctance to name the enemy, and you can't win if you're not willing to do that. i -- [applause] on my website at a meeting with the combatant commanders back in 2003, and i got back to the office and i was concerned and i wrote a memo and it's on rumsfeld.com. i think it's dated october 13 or 16th 2003. and basically i said we don't have metrics to know if we are winning or losing. the war on terror. we have a pretty good idea the number of people th

legislation and regulation covering 80% of the problem out there but when we want to deal with the nationstate, 10% to 20% of the problem is the means for the government to share intelligence of the private factor with that enormous liabilities in doing so insert the information sharing and a codified way we can make it actionable quicker. >> all three of you agree among the operators of critical infrastructure in this country you can find companies that are not doing what they should be doing in this area and every there just not pay any attention it deserves or maybe economic decision not to invest are basically play the role of the lacquered rewriter about other people drive it forward. is that a yes, yes and yes across the board? >> i can say most of the organizations they responded to were unreasonable to prevent. so we respond to over 30 of the 100. i think they were probably out getting a check for compliance is pretty aggressive standards. yet they were still breached. when it comes to the critical infrastructure as they sit inking about it, the majority of organizations had security p

has anyone sat down and said that this event would be considered a nationstate cyberattack, allowingus to respond out i'd of the law-enforcement model? our friends seem to be hell-bent on stealing anything they can get their hands on here in america or it other than developing it in their own time. i am more worried about other nations, not just china. .. >> it could be both. >> if they disrupt military operations? >> i am not sure, sir. >> would you like to take a crack at that? >> if you look at the range with is what keeps me up that night. part of these questions have to go to a general alexander but if you look at the range anything with intelligence you have everything from state actors to criminal organizations and people who work to get that done. that is why private security and mechanisms and going back to robbing banks when they were set up they did not all have cars, cameras and a lot of defenses now companies are determining technology also to provide the solution is. >> with a law enforcement model to go after the bad actors, are you familiar with the counter terrorism

iraq was never a nationstate. i am looking for you to impart knowledge, not to get generalities.he is the heart of problem? what is the cause of the --blem question mark make problem? make the american people understand this is religion. host: let's get a response. guest: you make some good points. i disagree with some. one of the principal causes, not the only one, is religious differences. you have had a faction of shia islam led by the assad family that has been in control of syria. the majority of the population is sunni muslim. you are seeing a battle between the majority sunni muslim population, and on the other side, the loi, the kurds, the business community -- it has a sense of religious conflict, but it goes beyond that. there is no question that ideology in place. russia andies to iran. the sunni population does not have those relationships. where i disagree is i am not sure if you are referring to president obama or president bush, but these are intelligent men and they know that difference between sunni islam -- president bush was involved in the middle east, and pre

ofs is -- at the level espionage, this is a battle of nations -- that is, as old as the nationstate, it has to be treated as such. we're simply simply doing it in a new domain. there's nothing new about the process itself. the computer all information they need at american university since the late 1970s. mr. goure, who is our greatest cyber adversary? guest: you know, that is an interesting question. most of the reports identify four major players in terms of espionage. the chinese are number one. the russians are a close number two. very sophisticated but not in the same map. israel is identified as the third player, largely for economic advantage. and france, interestingly enough, is identified as the fourth major player, or at least sources in france. i don't mean that the national government level. , everybody wants to play in the big race has essentially major power ambitions who is looking for ways to jumpstart their economy. all of them are coming to the united states as it, you will, the cornucopia of technology and trying to steal it. anst: you know, that is interesting que

iraq was never a nationstate. i am looking for you to impart knowledge, not to get generalities.what is the heart of the problem? what is the cause of the problem question mark make -- problem? make the american people understand this is religion. host: let's get a response. guest: you make some good points. i disagree with some. one of the principal causes, not the only one, is religious differences. you have had a faction of shia islam led by the assad family that has been in control of syria. the majority of the population is sunni muslim. you are seeing a battle between the majority sunni muslim population, and on the other side, the loi, the kurds, the business community -- it has a sense of religious conflict, but it goes beyond that. there is no question that ideology in place. assad has ties to russia and iran. the sunni population does not have those relationships. where i disagree is i am not sure if you are referring to president obama or president bush, but these are intelligent men and they know that difference between sunni islam -- president bush was involved in th

iraq was never a nationstate. i am looking for you to impart knowledge, not to get generalities. what is the heart of the problem? what is the cause of the problem question mark make -- problem? make the american people understand this is religion. host: let's get a response. guest: you make some good points. disagree with some. one of the principal causes, not the only one, is religious differences. you have had a faction of shia islam led by the assad family that has been in control of syria. the majority of the population is sunni muslim. you are seeing a battle between he majority sunni muslim population, and on the other side, the loi, the kurds, the business community -- it has a sense of religious conflict, but it goes beyond that. there is no question that ideology in place. assad has ties to russia and iran. the sunni population does not ave those relationships. where i disagree is i am not sure if you are referring to president obama or president bush, but these are intelligent men and they know that difference between sunni islam -- president bush was involved in the m

at the moment, this nationstate definition that sovereignty is paramount and tibetans subject themselves to the occupation and accept the repression, economic marginalization, environmental disruption, and most important, cultural assimilation, whereby tibetans are made to speak in chinese and accept chinese as not just the medium of instruction or as -- but as the mailing which discourse, it is very -- main line which of the scores, it is not just bothersome but violates the fundamental rights of the tibetan people. hence the resentment. host: our caller asked where you live. in india. dharamsala. he also asked about the recognition of the tibetans. 2 final tweets. the obama out that administration has borrowed money from communist china. and jody tweets -- how does the u.s. deal with tibet and how does it play out politically? ,uest: the economy is important but human rights should be equally important. maybe she is right to point out that you get 12 pairs of socks for four dollars. but you can get 11 pairs of socks for four dollars from another country. but if you look at the deficit,

obama care is making nationstate. it is having a terrible effect on our economy.t drives a wedge between business owners and business operators, and their employees. that is the biggest problem. we're trying to make those people, the owners, the managers the bad guys. the bad guy in this case is the . we have done something that is absolutely irreplaceable. you cannot do that to people who make a living working with each other, and put them on opposite sides of the case. better healthcare, absolutely. affordable, accessible, absolute. this did not do that. i am intrigued by the amount of passion that we see from the other side and there was a little concern at the time it was crafted to ask opinions. we are not going to quit trying go ask people who actually create the jobs and find how difficult we have made it for them. how much time on each side? >> the gentleman on michigan has 3.5 minutes remaining. i reserve. >> he gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to a gentleman from alabama, who understands how minty struggle with healthcare. >> th