Author
|
Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
KerryIrons
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3234
Location: Midland, MI12/11/16 9:17 AM |
Just say no to the Rusky threat
And Trump insiders say "no, they didn't." At least now we know both sides of "the truth."
It gives new meaning to the Oxford English Dictionary's word of the year: post-truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH12/11/16 12:04 PM |
The CIA has "an amazing grasp of the obvious"
Seriously, why else would the Russians have hacked the DNC? Assange made his disdain for Clinton known a long time ago. While this is certainly despicable, it's hardly news. It also deserves a strong response, but in line with his historically paralyzed, limp-wristed foreign policy, Obama has done nothing. No surprise there, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3345
Location: NorCal12/11/16 12:18 PM |
"..., it's hardly news. It also deserves a strong response,..."
Yeah, that's what we're supposed to think, so we
consent
to another cold-war spending fiasco that just puts the US further in debt than it already is.
As usual, war profiteers will get an even bigger military spending slice of our pie, all in keeping with the two-party overspending party.
And don't expect the other party to stand in the way, either.
In today's digital world, if the Dem's can't keep their dirty laundry secure, we really shouldn't be voting for them!!! But now we'll have a bunch of fools blaming Russia for Trump's supposed victory and for whatever failed policies and blunders he will no doubt be given credit for.
All too
predictable imo.
There is a long and continuous record of this sort of WaPo/MSM reporting turning out to be completely false, just as Iraq1, Iraq2, and WW1 for that matter!
Why believe it?
Why pretend to believe it?
For some reason, many Americans do one or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX12/11/16 1:04 PM |
So US [I mean both us and the US] hacking levels of all countries in the name of national security is OK, and other countries doing the same to us etc.
But doing it for the sake of political means breaks some sort of espionage decorum??
WTF is that? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH12/11/16 2:45 PM |
A strong response doesn't mean war...
...at least not in the "boots on the ground" sense. There are plenty of ways to retaliate against Russia without endangering American lives.
However, Obama's utter ineptitude in handling foreign threats and provocations has put us in a position where nobody takes us seriously anymore. If he hadn't simply allowed Russia to run roughshod over Crimea, Putin wouldn't be feeling so cocky in Europe and the Middle East. If he hadn't made idle "red lines" in Syria, it could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives taken by Assad and ISIS, and refugees lost in attempting to flee to Europe. Add to that the millions who have been displaced and it's hard to see how anyone could have done a worse job.
Last edited by Brian Nystrom on 12/12/16 6:30 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
walter
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 4391
Location: metro-motown-area12/11/16 5:23 PM |
sadly
this story will go nowhere unless goes beyond the left's echo chamber.
this plus trump's unwillingness to sit for daily national security briefings?
remember all those "rule of law" voters that helped put trump in office? they're all sitting on their hands...incredibly pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Payne
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 2625
Location: Canberra, Australia12/11/16 8:03 PM |
Some wonderful prescience by HL Mencken, who died in 1956: "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX12/11/16 9:00 PM |
"White House will be adorned by a downright moron"
Little did he know it would start happening over and over.
Although it seems the Donald does not want to adorn that particular address apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH12/12/16 6:31 AM |
Have you seen the movie "Idiocracy"?
It's pretty forgettable, but it may well be the future. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3712
Location: Brooklyn, NY12/12/16 9:20 AM |
I have no doubt the Russians have been hacking. And it wouldn't surprise me that they selectively released what they found to influence the election. I also suspect that they doctored some of the released material to create the narrative they wanted.
This is the new age of warfare.
I suspect the US intel community is doing the same thing. Of course, influencing a Russion election is a joke. But there are probably other strategic efforts underway.
The economic sanctions against Russia are taking their toll. Deciding on using those sanctions rather than putting boots on the ground makes sense to me. If we are taking more forceful actions, they would be covert and should stay that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield12/12/16 9:26 AM |
As long as the people who held Obama to harsh scrutiny do the same with DT it's fine. Don't be hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3345
Location: NorCal12/12/16 3:50 PM |
"...at least not in the "boots on the ground" sense. There are plenty of ways to retaliate against Russia without endangering American lives.
However, Obama's utter ineptitude in handling foreign threats and provocations has put us in a position where nobody takes us seriously anymore. If he hadn't simply allowed Russia to run roughshod over Crimea, Putin wouldn't be feeling so cocky in Europe and the Middle East. If he hadn't made idle "red lines" in Syria, it could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives taken by Assad and ISIS, and refugees lost in attempting to flee to Europe. Add to that the millions who have been displaced and it's hard to see how anyone could have done a worse job."
Stating that Obama "...simply allowed Russia to run roughshod over Crimea..." begs the question of why we were at conflict with Russia over the Crimea.
That was apparently a predictable tis-for-tat response to the the US/NATO's confessed interference with the takeover of Ukraine, which in itself might be expected to elicit "retaliation" of some sort. How many here have read about how US officials bragged about the huge sums of our tax money that was used to destabilize the elected gov't of Ukraine? Of course it was explained away by accusations that the gov't there was corrupt, just like wars against Iraq and Germany were justified by the premeditated news stories (about events that never happened) of such and such a "dictator" committing atrocities against babies and against their own citizens. History always shows us that there were hidden objectives in such myths and actions, hidden because the citizenry wouldn't otherwise approve of them! I guess we're all supposed to be dummies who just take the words of the world's financial class elites who control all of the news outlets these days, then risk our own necks by being irritants around other power's borders. What difference does it make when the global financial corporocracy has been going about stating their objectives in erasing geographic borders and replacing them with commerce hubs and money/resource pathways? I won't hold my breath waiting for DT to rebuke them, though an apparent shift in alliances might be part of a scheduled next phase in the "global transformation" leading to non-representative rule that people will accept, perhaps even lobby for, as a pre-packaged replacement for their sabotaged representative leadership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield12/12/16 5:21 PM |
...at least not in the "boots on the ground" sense. There are plenty of ways to retaliate against Russia without endangering American lives.
However, Obama's utter ineptitude in handling foreign threats and provocations has put us in a position where nobody takes us seriously anymore.
This reads as contradictory. Provide examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH12/12/16 7:51 PM |
There's nothing contradictory about it
I have no idea what you're inferring from what I wrote, but I think I made my points pretty clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield12/12/16 9:10 PM |
...no boots on the ground, plenty of other ways...
...Obama...inept policy...
What no-boots actions do you think are better than the no-boots actions Mr. Obama has implemented? What "plenty of other ways" has our President elected to not use?
Absence of content is not clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX12/12/16 9:37 PM |
Can we tame it down a bit folks. Have the conversation, - the bipartisan bickering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH12/13/16 6:08 AM |
I said...
" There are plenty of ways to retaliate against
Russia
without endangering American lives."
In Syria, we needed to do something militarily and taking out Assad's air force and armor from the air would have likely done enough, without having to put troops on the ground. It certainly would have saved tens of thousands of lives at a minimum. It would also have preempted any Russian involvement and eliminated the fertile ground where ISIS ultimately thrived.
The fact that Obama did nothing other than wring his hands and hope the problem would go away completely destroyed any deterrent effect US threats had. He turned us into a toothless tiger, always doing way too little, way too late. Apparently, attempting to keep his campaign promise about ending wars was more important to him than all of the lives that were bound to be lost due to his inaction. It's sickening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX12/13/16 10:32 AM |
Did nothing VS what the Halliburton Administration accomplished in Iraq?
Last edited by Sparky on 12/13/16 3:12 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5096
Location: Nashua, NH12/13/16 12:07 PM |
There are times...
...when action - often swift action - is necessary. Whenever Obama encountered such a situation, he blinked and many innocent people died as a result.
We can debate whether the Iraq war should have happened or not, but that has nothing to do with the situational necessity to act in Syria. In the latter case, US engagement would have been limited and the goals well defined, take out Assad's air and armor assets. Once that was done, the opposition troops (supported by the limited "coalition") would have moved in to mop up the mess and take control of the country. Granted, that's an over-simplification of what would probably been a more complex situation due to sectarian tensions (among other things), but our involvement would/could have been defined and limited regardless.
Putin would have been left watching from the sidelines and ISIS would likely have been limited to being more of a nuisance than the major force it became. Instead, Obama stood by and watched Putin move in and help Assad murder Syrian civilians by the thousands. I sincerely hope that haunts him for the rest of his life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3345
Location: NorCal12/13/16 12:29 PM |
I guess that's what some voices wanted him to do, just as some voices wanted Obama to launch a direct military strike against Iran.
Even as those in the know who challenged assertions as to Iran's supposed nuke weapons program might have been replaced/fired under Obama, and while threats of a strike were likely just threats intended to sway Iran's decisions, Obama didn't push for an attack but did apparently quietly let Israel "take out" (by terrorist means) a few of Iran's nuclear scientists.
Looking at the Syria crisis from the beginning, where was there a need for the West/NATO to start the entire destruction of Syria by supporting foreign terrorists/insurgents/opposition to Assad's rule? Is it supposed to be a good thing for the US and NATO countries to now have to re-settle a huge swath of the Syrian population into the western countries? Who wants this(?), certainly not the Syrians!
Obama gave the order, "Assad has to go", and the whole ISIS movement followed, giving the "security establishment" another ten year boogeyman excuse to wage war and send yet another nation's occupants fleeing to Western shores.
Is this what any of us wanted?
Russia is perhaps only involved here because Syria and Iraq are close by, not because they are trying to install by force their own version of what they might want another country's government to be.
Who is calling the shots and twisting the arm of the NATO countries to act as they have? The media certainly paints a picture of why there should be US actions, but does the citizenry really even have a half a dog in this fight? Does the faucet that controls the continuous flow of currency loans privately dictate what Western leaders must do(?), for private interests?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3345
Location: NorCal12/13/16 12:43 PM |
Interesting revelation about Hilary Clinton's campaign advisor's involvement in Russian energy company investment, John Podesta apparently being another Trilateral Commission member up to his neck in that sort of thing:
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/08/01/technocrat-john-podesta-hid-personal-connection-energy-company-russian-connections/
Polititians at the level of Trump or Hillary's campaigns are not loyal to borders defining any nation, they are simply global-elite community members who do as they are told, even as they play on the democracy stage (by the rules, or not) in front of the cameras.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|