The Russia/USA Game

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Everybody calls him a Russian spy... 

Because he's Russian. 

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Nope, clean it up, figure out what actually happened before making it an international incident... If Putin was looking for a whole lot of drama he got exactly what he wanted. The west now looks like a bunch of melodramatic, incompetent idiots. 

The only people who think the West looks like melodramatic incompetent idiots are the Russians and a certain cadre of people in the West who admire Putin for his 'strength'.

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

I have no idea and neither do you I assume. 

I think we'd have heard of it.

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Hey, it's entirely possible. I bet the Russian population is as good or bad as any other. As far as Putin and company, they may have  ligitimate reasons for their actions, then again, maybe not... 

Are they worse than the US? 

Infinitely so. 

[GostHacked]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Russia is a criminal regime and it's president is a cold-blooded killer without a soul.

 

The US is no better nor any different.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Well the whole show is one big cluster**** as far as I can see. A retired double agent and his daughter were poisoned by somebody. England and company accuse Russia with virtually no evidence. Russia figures England did it but England won't allow Russia to participate in investigation or at least share evidence so Russia can at least check it themselves. Everybody is kicking Russian diplomats out and Russia is retaliating, Trump can't makeup his mind if Russia is friend or foe, one minute he wants to be friends and the next he's threatening Russia. Putin claims Russia can take out virtually any enemy and they cannot stop his weapons but nobody seems to care.

Fun times 

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The US is no better nor any different.

You can point out problems with western democracies, and criticize them/us without stooping to say they are "no different" than countries with autocratic governments, who control and intimidate the press, kill and torture with impunity.   

 

Is Canada any better or any different ?

[Argus]

21 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The US is no better nor any different.

Really? How many of Trump's political enemies have been murdered? How many anti-Trump demonstrations have been violently broken up by police? How many newspapers and media organizations has he shut down? A brief list, if you please.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Well the whole show is one big cluster**** as far as I can see. A retired double agent and his daughter were poisoned by somebody. England and company accuse Russia with virtually no evidence. Russia figures England did it but England won't allow Russia to participate in investigation or at least share evidence so Russia can at least check it themselves. Everybody is kicking Russian diplomats out and Russia is retaliating, Trump can't makeup his mind if Russia is friend or foe, one minute he wants to be friends and the next he's threatening Russia. Putin claims Russia can take out virtually any enemy and they cannot stop his weapons but nobody seems to care.

Fun times 

Are you a Russian? Or a fan of theirs? Your post reads like the nonsensical sputterings of RT.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Argus

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can point out problems with western democracies, and criticize them/us without stooping to say they are "no different" than countries with autocratic governments, who control and intimidate the press, kill and torture with impunity.   

 

Is Canada any better or any different ?

NO Canada is no different when we support this based on agreements with several nations to work together to overthrow leaders .. sorry, bring regime change .. wait .. bring democracy (nailed it!) to their lands. Hows that working out so far? I keep asking the question but I don't see many answers to those questions.

I would challenge anyone to bring me ONE good solid reason why Syria (as bad as it was perceived) is going to be better off , literally rebuilding from absolutely devastated cities in ruins in order to bring freedom to their land.  Was it worth it? I would ask the Syrians if it was all worth it.

The other disturbing thing here is the expulsion of diplomats on all sides. Essentially saying,  screw it, negotiations are off, gtfo.

Let's project a little into the future and we can see several outcomes. Peace would be nice,, but not likely. A new colder war with real skirmishes that will happen in Russia, Europe and North America but mainly proxied in the Middle East between the major players. That industrial military complex is a sweet gig I tells ya! When that destruction comes to this side of the world (and some claim it''s already on our shores with the Islamic radical terrorists ect and we see that in Europe already, but I digress)... how are we going to feel about it? More importantly what are we going to DO about it? Blame the people bringing it here? Or blame our leaders that have gotten us into this mess while trying to scare the hell out of us to coerce us into supporting their cause.

If I piss off my neighbour enough, for no real good reason .. should I be upset if he pisses me off on purpose?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

I would challenge anyone to bring me ONE good solid reason why Syria (as bad as it was perceived) is going to be better off , literally rebuilding from absolutely devastated cities in ruins in order to bring freedom to their land.  Was it worth it? I would ask the Syrians if it was all worth it.

Well, do you think Syria will always be under a dictator ?  If it shouldn't be free now then when ?

 

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

When that destruction comes to this side of the world (and some claim it''s already on our shores with the Islamic radical terrorists ect and we see that in Europe already, but I digress)... how are we going to feel about it? More importantly what are we going to DO about it? Blame the people bringing it here?

Are you saying Syria is going to send terrorists here ?  And that we shouldn't act against a tin-pot dictator like Assad because he might send a shoe bomber ?  

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, do you think Syria will always be under a dictator ?  If it shouldn't be free now then when ?

That's not for us to decide. If we have not taken out dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, North Korean, and even if you want to push it farther to include Russian, China, Iran, then what are we doing? It's really selective. Let's not forget that our leaders have made agreements to supply the weapons to those dictatorships that are no different than what you would have in Syria.   Really what gives? Why do we do business with nations that lop people's heads off in the streets, while at the same time we point the finger at Assad and say he is bad, when we initiated and exacerbated the whole damn thing and continues to instigate and stoke the flames every step of the way.

What advantage would Assad have at the moment by using chemical weapons on his own people?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Are you saying Syria is going to send terrorists here ?  And that we shouldn't act against a tin-pot dictator like Assad because he might send a shoe bomber ?  

You are reading too specifically into it. Terrorism and counter terrorism are both booming (hehe sorry) industries.  Bin Laden stated that the reason he smacked down the twin towers (which I am not sure he really ever claimed to have have any part in) was that the US was meddling to much in the M.E.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1) If we have not taken out dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, North Korean, and even if you want to push it farther to include Russian, China, Iran, then what are we doing?

2) It's really selective.

3) Let's not forget that our leaders have made agreements to supply the weapons to those dictatorships that are no different than what you would have in Syria.   Really what gives?

4) Why do we do business with nations that lop people's heads off in the streets, while at the same time we point the finger at Assad and say he is bad, when we initiated and exacerbated the whole damn thing and continues to instigate and stoke the flames every step of the way.

5) What advantage would Assad have at the moment by using chemical weapons on his own people?

( Please keep in mind I'm not opposing your position, necessarily, just trying to find out what basic principles are being followed and maybe pointing out difficulties on all sides. )
1)  There are good reasons to not go after those 5 examples

2)  Yes, and you can assess risk as part of any selection process

3)  Yes, and that is not conscionable and downright shameful. 

4) See #3

5) Well, presumably he has enemies and internal groups that oppose him.

 

18 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

6) You are reading too specifically into it. Terrorism and counter terrorism are both booming (hehe sorry) industries.  Bin Laden stated that the reason he smacked down the twin towers (which I am not sure he really ever claimed to have have any part in) was that the US was meddling to much in the M.E.

6) Well, he failed to dissuade them and he and many close to him are dead.  His organization is depleted, and the US continues to pursue its goals.  I don't think retaliation from tin-pot dictators is a reason to not act, but as ou point out that assumes there is some rational plan behind any action.

[GostHacked]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

( Please keep in mind I'm not opposing your position, necessarily, just trying to find out what basic principles are being followed and maybe pointing out difficulties on all sides. )
1)  There are good reasons to not go after those 5 examples

What are those reasons?

 

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

Are you a Russian? Or a fan of theirs? Your post reads like the nonsensical sputterings of RT.

I'm looking at what we are being fed for news, if this were taken to court it would be thrown out faster than you can shout "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!". 

The English claim it was a Russian nerve agent and even though nobody else can get it they somehow have proof? 

I wonder how many other people have been killed as a result of this incident, if Putin is as bad as some here think he is he must be knocking them off by the dozen. 

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Instead of shouting "THE RUSSIANS DID IT!" and doing their damnedest to start world war three maybe cooler heads would say these people were poisoned by what appears to be a Russian nerve agent. Maybe share evidence with Russian investigators and get to the bottom of it. 

Maybe they are trying Trump's approach, threaten them until they back down? It seems to be working with Kim Jong-un... 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

What are those reasons?

A few of those have massive armed forces, Saudi has massive amounts of resources, North Korean and Iran have limited strategic advantage and there are risks there too.

 

When you list the military actions by the US since 1980, you have... Grenada, Panama, Libya.... tactical air strikes and precision moves with a minimal risk.  And why not ?  Nobody doubts that the US could unleash a massive toll on any foe it would go against.  The 2nd Iraq war was the exception where they occupied and nation built, and yet people criticized that one more than anything and depicted it as a kind of loss.

Meanwhile, Iraq is still there as a fledgling democracy, and the repercussions for freedom went through the ME.  But the US can't win.

Anyway, I am not fully disagreeing with you nor am I agreeing with you.  Of course the US will work in its own interests, and sometimes in the general interest also.

[xul]

On 11/04/2018 at 7:04 AM, Michael Hardner said:

You can point out problems with western democracies, and criticize them/us without stooping to say they are "no different" than countries with autocratic governments, who control and intimidate the press, kill and torture with impunity.   

so, how much difference is there between TASS's fake news vs CNN's fake news

If you pay attention to the posts of right wingers's here, you will find out a lot of complains on "liberal media tyranny" and they are not referring foreign autocratic governments like Russian or Chinese.

And I have to agree with them, partially. I remember years ago, there were comment sections under the news pages of most media websites. Now most of them  have gone because right wingers used to use this function ranting their hatred towards liberals, fake news of media, system...etc.

Edited April 12, 2018 by xul

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

I'm looking at what we are being fed for news,

Yeah, that's total crap. There's tons of independent sources and the only ones you seem to be going by are those controlled by the Russian dictatorship.

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

if this were taken to court it would be thrown out faster than you can shout "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!". 

 

Well, if it was a Russian court, that's certainly true as there is no rule of law in Russia and decisions are made before trials begin. However, most democracies recognize that 'circumstantial' evidence is actually the most reliable kind. The fact this was a highly toxic nerve agent in the hands of Russia and only Russia, and that no one else had any motive to harm these people combined with the Russia's known history of sending killers abroad to murder those they consider enemies makes this pretty damned obvious.

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

The English claim it was a Russian nerve agent and even though nobody else can get it they somehow have proof? 

Think again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43741140

 

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

I wonder how many other people have been killed as a result of this incident, if Putin is as bad as some here think he is he must be knocking them off by the dozen. 

Putin has had hundreds murdered, and tens of thousands more in the wars he's started.

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

A few of those have massive armed forces, Saudi has massive amounts of resources, North Korean and Iran have limited strategic advantage and there are risks there too.

So because Saudi Arabia has resoucces but act NO different than other dictatorships, they get a pass?  That's an inconsistent approach and very hypocritical.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

When you list the military actions by the US since 1980, you have... Grenada, Panama, Libya.... tactical air strikes and precision moves with a minimal risk.  And why not ?  Nobody doubts that the US could unleash a massive toll on any foe it would go against.  The 2nd Iraq war was the exception where they occupied and nation built, and yet people criticized that one more than anything and depicted it as a kind of loss.

Meanwhile, Iraq is still there as a fledgling democracy, and the repercussions for freedom went through the ME.  But the US can't win.

Anyway, I am not fully disagreeing with you nor am I agreeing with you.  Of course the US will work in its own interests, and sometimes in the general interest also.

Minimal risks to who?  And I have never seen a fence sitter such as yourself.  So this is Syria.. what is the interest there?  Sure as fuck ain't the people or the nation itself. 

Gas for your car more important than a human life?

 

[GostHacked]

The other thing that should not sit well with anyone is that this new alleged chemical attack by Syrian forces will be used as an excuse by the US and other nations to launch cruise missiles into the nation to cause more devastation.

Is that going to make things better?

 

[Michael Hardner]

50 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

So because Saudi Arabia has resoucces but act NO different than other dictatorships, they get a pass?  That's an inconsistent approach and very hypocritical.

Well, I suppose you're right.   As I said, it's a mix of self-interest and general welfare that drives these things and both are involved here.  Invading Saudi Arabia because they behead infidels would help the infidels on death row in SA.  But the cost of energy in Australia would cause strife also.  That's an example and please don't associate my argument with my personal feelings on this because I am not involved either way.

Quote

Minimal risks to who?  And I have never seen a fence sitter such as yourself.  So this is Syria.. what is the interest there?  Sure as fuck ain't the people or the nation itself. 

Gas for your car more important than a human life?

Don't shoot the messenger.  I am explaining the thinking behind this.  The interest in Syria is strictly humanitarian, with arguably some reputation-saving.

If it were my car, or my life, then I think the US would take me out for the greater good... and their own welfare also.  It's a grim calculus for sure...

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Is that going to make things better?

If it stops them from doing it again, then 'yes'.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The other thing that should not sit well with anyone is that this new alleged chemical attack by Syrian forces will be used as an excuse by the US and other nations to launch cruise missiles into the nation to cause more devastation.

Is that going to make things better?

If it makes the point you can't do stuff like this, not just to them but to all the other scummy regimes out there from North Korea to Russia, then yeah.

[GostHacked]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If it stops them from doing it again, then 'yes'.

Stops who from doing what?  Let's not forget that each time the chemical weapons notion was put forth, NO evidence was ever presented. So if nothing was done before, how can they do it 'again' ??

2 hours ago, Argus said:

If it makes the point you can't do stuff like this, not just to them but to all the other scummy regimes out there from North Korea to Russia, then yeah.

Correct, I will agree. However that is how we have gotten into these messes in the first place. 

Iraq - WMDs,  still have not found them...  babies thrown out of incubators.. never happened.  Yellowcake from Niger..  never happened.

The track record for telling the truth by out leaders has been deplorable. So what would make you trust the information this time? When every other time the results were inconclusive or found to be completely incorrect.

Edited April 12, 2018 by GostHacked

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

Yeah, that's total crap. There's tons of independent sources and the only ones you seem to be going by are those controlled by the Russian dictatorship.

Yea, "independant" is unbiased? Or what you want to hear? Let me guess, Facebook news is considered "independent"...

Most of MSM including CBC in the west is run by the Russian dictatorship?

8 hours ago, Argus said:

 

Well, if it was a Russian court, that's certainly true as there is no rule of law in Russia and decisions are made before trials begin. However, most democracies recognize that 'circumstantial' evidence is actually the most reliable kind.

This circumstantial evidence could start a war, personally I'd prefer concrete evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is the reason for so many false convictions, mistrials and criminals walking free, I doubt courts without corruption in Russia are any worse than ours.  

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

The fact this was a highly toxic nerve agent in the hands of Russia and only Russia, and that no one else had any motive to harm these people combined with the Russia's known history of sending killers abroad to murder those they consider enemies makes this pretty damned obvious.

Actually the "fact" is it was a Soviet product, when the USSR broke up many weapons found their way to the black market, why not this stuff? Obviously England got their hands on it or how could they "prove" it was of Russian origin? Also if they have it what's to say they can't duplicate it? What proves it's Russian? The serial number on the vial?

9 hours ago, Argus said:

Think again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43741140

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/novichok-nerve-agent-russia-spy-1.4573210 Note the words "highly likely", it was highly likely I sped on the way home tonight, doesn't mean I did...

Your link proves my point, there's a good chance it's a Russian (or Soviet) product but they have no idea who actually did it.

There are Westerners being killed by American weapons all the time, let me guess, this is on orders of the president?

9 hours ago, Argus said:

 

Putin has had hundreds murdered, and tens of thousands more in the wars he's started.

You have proof of this? Who's he murdered? What wars? You were there when he ordered the assassinations and the wars? Or are you relying on "highly likely" hearsay?

So the best plan is to poke him until he retaliates? If Putin is as evil as you claim then accusing him of this act is the dumbest thing you can do. You really are telling me the west really is being run by incompetent idiots.

It's interesting the masses always need an enemy, maybe it's required to keep them from going to war with each other? Keep them distracted and when the distraction starts to wane start another "crisis", setting up another cold war should keep us busy for awhile, maybe it's time to do nuclear attack drills again, keep it fresh.   

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Stops who from doing what?  Let's not forget that each time the chemical weapons notion was put forth, NO evidence was ever presented. So if nothing was done before, how can they do it 'again' ??

Well, of course this assumes it's not all a big lie.

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

 The track record for telling the truth by out leaders has been deplorable. So what would make you trust the information this time? When every other time the results were inconclusive or found to be completely incorrect.

Is anything they say true ?