When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Putin government has placed its own man in the White House in a direct attack against the US Constitution and system of free and open government, should the US respond by declaring war on Russia?
What Putin did to the US is a de facto act of war, should the US respond by making this state of war official?
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Putin government has placed its own man in the White House in a direct attack against the US Constitution and system of free and open government, should the US respond by declaring war on Russia? What Putin did to the US is a de facto act of war, should the US respond by making this state of war official?Not war, certainly. We'd lose more that we'd gain. Sanctions, maybe. Ther isn't a lot we can do, but I wouldn't start a war.
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Putin government has placed its own man in the White House in a direct attack against the US Constitution and system of free and open government, should the US respond by declaring war on Russia? What Putin did to the US is a de facto act of war, should the US respond by making this state of war official?War on Russia? Really? Let us assume that Russia actually spied, found Hillary Clinton's (or other politicians') emails or activities, and tried to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by giving that information to WikiLeaks to publish. Is that crime enough to punish Russia with a war? Most countries, especially the powerful ones, routinely spy on other countries and try to influence economic and political activities in other countries. Doesn't the USA do it? Doesn't Britain do it? Doesn't India do it? Doesn't Israel do it? We can go on and on. Surely, Russia did not help a coup d'état in the USA. They tried to influence voters so that Trump could be elected (assuming that is true). But, after all, Trump was elected by the US citizens as per US laws. Everyone has a right to dislike the election result; but to blame the Russians to the point of talking about declaring a war sounds absurd to me. I think a more productive discussion would be to try to figure out what was the problem with the progressive forces that they lost against Donald Trump, who surely did not look presidential during the election campaign. (He still is not prudential.)
I think a more productive discussion would be to try to figure out what was the problem with the progressive forces that they lost against Donald Trump, who surely did not look presidential during the election campaign. (He still is not prudential.)Great commentary as usual Sam.
I think a more productive discussion would be to try to figure out what was the problem with the progressive forces that they lost against Donald Trump, who surely did not look presidential during the election campaign. (He still is not prudential.)I've just come to the epiphany that many, if not all, if not all then those at the American Humanist Association are more political than humanist. Thus, progressive is not a word referring to humans but to political rule. While free from the predisposition toward religious "truth", the AHA has to escape predisposition toward political "truth". Since there is insufficient testing of the evidence of the value of the progressive political truth, it becomes or just replaces the need to be "righteous", "true" and "superior". And the usually less than competent arguments start all over. I agree, AHA is not above what you called "political truth", which is probably another term for "political correctness". I suppose, people/organizations that wish to make changes in an evolutionary manner try political correctness. Also, since religious people and religion-traders control much of the money, influence and might in the world, it is certainly difficult for totally honest secular humanists to promote their objectives.
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Putin government has placed its own man in the White House in a direct attack against the US Constitution and system of free and open government, should the US respond by declaring war on Russia? What Putin did to the US is a de facto act of war, should the US respond by making this state of war official?Are you out of your mind? At least if we did start a war in 30 mins. or less none of us would have a damn thing o worry about. Ashes to ashes dust to dust.
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Putin government has placed its own man in the White House in a direct attack against the US Constitution and system of free and open government, should the US respond by declaring war on Russia? What Putin did to the US is a de facto act of war, should the US respond by making this state of war official?Not war, certainly. We'd lose more that we'd gain. Sanctions, maybe. Ther isn't a lot we can do, but I wouldn't start a war. I agree but our so-called president would never start a war or impose sanctions on Russia, no matter what they have done. . Russia and Trump are BFFs.
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Putin government has placed its own man in the White House in a direct attack against the US Constitution and system of free and open government, should the US respond by declaring war on Russia? What Putin did to the US is a de facto act of war, should the US respond by making this state of war official?War on Russia? Really? Let us assume that Russia actually spied, found Hillary Clinton's (or other politicians') emails or activities, and tried to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by giving that information to WikiLeaks to publish. Is that crime enough to punish Russia with a war? Most countries, especially the powerful ones, routinely spy on other countries and try to influence economic and political activities in other countries. Doesn't the USA do it? Doesn't Britain do it? Doesn't India do it? Doesn't Israel do it? We can go on and on. Surely, Russia did not help a coup d'état in the USA. They tried to influence voters so that Trump could be elected (assuming that is true). But, after all, Trump was elected by the US citizens as per US laws. Everyone has a right to dislike the election result; but to blame the Russians to the point of talking about declaring a war sounds absurd to me. I think a more productive discussion would be to try to figure out what was the problem with the progressive forces that they lost against Donald Trump, who surely did not look presidential during the election campaign. (He still is not prudential.) "The progressive forces didn't lose against Trump. They won by more than 3 million votes. It's only our convoluted useless electoral sysytem that made Trump president while losing the popular vote. The progressive forces won--and they would have won the presidency in a democratic election. You should be trying to find out what the problem is with the reactionary forces that they got 3 million fewer votes than the progressive forces did. There were 3 million more American voters who voted FOR progressive forces than FOR reactionary forces, no matter how the election was manipulated, including by Russia.
I think a more productive discussion would be to try to figure out what was the problem with the progressive forces that they lost against Donald Trump, who surely did not look presidential during the election campaign. (He still is not prudential.)I've just come to the epiphany that many, if not all, if not all then those at the American Humanist Association are more political than humanist. Thus, progressive is not a word referring to humans but to political rule. While free from the predisposition toward religious "truth", the AHA has to escape predisposition toward political "truth". Since there is insufficient testing of the evidence of the value of the progressive political truth, it becomes or just replaces the need to be "righteous", "true" and "superior". And the usually less than competent arguments start all over. So, by the same token religious people are more political than they are religious, since they so often vote for reactionaries and reactionary ideals and vote in blocs. . It works both ways, my friend. Religious reactionaries are even more political than humanists and they always have been.
Not war, certainly. We'd lose more that we'd gain. Sanctions, maybe. Ther isn't a lot we can do, but I wouldn't start a war.Maybe a recognition that we've never really stopped being in a low grade conflict with Russia and the kind of blocking policy against Russian aggression that prevented WW III for so many years. Sanctions are good and possibly support for low grade military action to once again bleed off the growing power of the Kremlin. Like training and arms for the Ukranians and possibly support for any attempt they might make to take back territory invaded by Putin's Russia. I think Hillary would have supported something like that which is why Putin wanted his pet orangutan in the White House. Monkey boy isn't going to do sweet F. all about Putin expanding the Russian empire. There are powerful members of the Putin government that even consider Alaska part of Russia. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/07/top-trump-ally-met-with-putin-s-deputy-in-moscow.html
But Rogozin is no ordinary Russian official, and his title extends far beyond being merely the chairman of a shooting club. His portfolio as deputy prime minister of Russia includes the defense industry. One issue where Rogozin seems particularly interested is cyberwarfare, which he has heralded for its “first strike" capability. And he’s well-known in Russia for being a radical—often taking a harder line than Putin himself. Rogozin was the leader of the ultra-right party called Rodina, or Motherland, and famously believes in the restoration of the Russian Empire, including what he calls “Russian America" (i.e., Alaska).The Russians are not our friends no matter what their moles in the White House keep claiming.
The progressive forces didn't lose against Trump. They won by more than 3 million votes. It's only our convoluted useless electoral sysytem that made Trump president while losing the popular vote. The progressive forces won--and they would have won the presidency in a democratic election. You should be trying to find out what the problem is with the reactionary forces that they got 3 million fewer votes than the progressive forces did. There were 3 million more American voters who voted FOR progressive forces than FOR reactionary forces, no matter how the election was manipulated, including by Russia.The reactionary and regressive forces are serious problems, no question about that. A good thing about dealing with them is that they can be recognized relatively easily. The problem with a lot of the apparently progressive forces is that they can be very deceptive and often difficult to recognize for what they actually are. Let me skip any specific example for now. Talking about the Electoral College system in the USA, it obviously provides some recognition that the USA comprises 50 states that are considerably autonomous. It is much like New York and Rhode Island have two senators each in the US Congress; that certainly is as undemocratic as the Electoral College system. But as for the presidential election win, the Electoral College it what mattered; and both the Democratic and Republican candidates knew that before they got their nominations. So, the candidate who could not get majority votes in smaller states suffered disproportionality compared to the total popular votes in the country; and Trump can logically claim that he did not spend as much in major urban states because he knew the rules of the game, and that if the rules were different he would have campaigned differently. However, in spite of what Trump claims, I personally believed that Hillary Clinton would have a landslide victory.
The progressive forces didn't lose against Trump. They won by more than 3 million votes. It's only our convoluted useless electoral sysytem that made Trump president while losing the popular vote. The progressive forces won--and they would have won the presidency in a democratic election. You should be trying to find out what the problem is with the reactionary forces that they got 3 million fewer votes than the progressive forces did. There were 3 million more American voters who voted FOR progressive forces than FOR reactionary forces, no matter how the election was manipulated, including by Russia.The reactionary and regressive forces are serious problems, no question about that. However, a good thing about dealing with them is that they can be recognized relatively easily. The problem with a lot of the apparently progressive forces is that they can be very deceptive and often difficult to recognize for what they actually are. Let me skip any specific example for now. Talking about the Electoral College system in the USA, it obviously provides some recognition that the USA comprises 50 states that are considerably autonomous. It is much like New York and Rhode Island have two senators each in the US Congress; that certainly is as undemocratic as the Electoral College system. But as for the presidential election win, the Electoral College is what mattered; and both the Democratic and Republican candidates knew that before they got their nominations. So, the candidate who could not get majority votes in smaller states suffered disproportionality compared to the total popular votes in the country; and Trump can logically claim that he did not spend as much in major urban states because he knew the rules of the game, and that if the rules were different he would have campaigned differently. However, in spite of what Trump claims, I personally believed that Hillary Clinton would have a landslide victory.
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Putin government has placed its own man in the White House in a direct attack against the US Constitution and system of free and open government, should the US respond by declaring war on Russia? What Putin did to the US is a de facto act of war, should the US respond by making this state of war official?War on Russia? Really? Let us assume that Russia actually spied, found Hillary Clinton's (or other politicians') emails or activities, and tried to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by giving that information to WikiLeaks to publish. Is that crime enough to punish Russia with a war? Most countries, especially the powerful ones, routinely spy on other countries and try to influence economic and political activities in other countries. Doesn't the USA do it? Doesn't Britain do it? Doesn't India do it? Doesn't Israel do it? We can go on and on. Surely, Russia did not help a coup d'état in the USA. They tried to influence voters so that Trump could be elected (assuming that is true). But, after all, Trump was elected by the US citizens as per US laws. Everyone has a right to dislike the election result; but to blame the Russians to the point of talking about declaring a war sounds absurd to me. I think a more productive discussion would be to try to figure out what was the problem with the progressive forces that they lost against Donald Trump, who surely did not look presidential during the election campaign. (He still is not prudential.)https://camo.githubusercontent.com/09376560942ff18a058c34314b9bb328948a915e/687474703a2f2f692e696d6775722e636f6d2f425972773275612e676966
When it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Putin government has placed its own man in the White House in a direct attack against the US Constitution and system of free and open government, should the US respond by declaring war on Russia? What Putin did to the US is a de facto act of war, should the US respond by making this state of war official?War will focus the entire US population away from politics and improve jobs for all and benefits. Escalation of war= progress, security, full employment, little to eat. But if we kill 'em...that'll teach em and the US will be smarter, safer, and just that much further in some direction. I say make the smart easy choice and kill those whom we follow in some hunt for red utopia, marx utopia, social democratic utopia, into the grave of the slovenly.This sounds weird.
Not war, certainly. We'd lose more that we'd gain. Sanctions, maybe. Ther isn't a lot we can do, but I wouldn't start a war.Maybe a recognition that we've never really stopped being in a low grade conflict with Russia and the kind of blocking policy against Russian aggression that prevented WW III for so many years.Nah, we haven't been in any sort of conflict with them since the cold war ended, that's Tom Clancy talk.
Sanctions are good and possibly support for low grade military action to once again bleed off the growing power of the Kremlin. Like training and arms for the Ukranians and possibly support for any attempt they might make to take back territory invaded by Putin's Russia.Any "low grade military action" taken would intensify really fast. Bad Idea. Not to mention the Ukraine situation is completely above our heads and we should have nothing to do with it.
I think Hillary would have supported something like that which is why Putin wanted his pet orangutan in the White House. Monkey boy isn't going to do sweet F. all about Putin expanding the Russian empire. There are powerful members of the Putin government that even consider Alaska part of Russia.If Clinton was for that its good for everybody that she lost. Russia is not interested in fighting America and whatever it has going on with its former Soviet states is not our problem.
The Russians are not our friends no matter what their moles in the White House keep claiming.Nor are they enemies.
Not war, certainly. We'd lose more that we'd gain. Sanctions, maybe. Ther isn't a lot we can do, but I wouldn't start a war.Maybe a recognition that we've never really stopped being in a low grade conflict with Russia and the kind of blocking policy against Russian aggression that prevented WW III for so many years.Nah, we haven't been in any sort of conflict with them since the cold war ended, that's Tom Clancy talk.
Sanctions are good and possibly support for low grade military action to once again bleed off the growing power of the Kremlin. Like training and arms for the Ukranians and possibly support for any attempt they might make to take back territory invaded by Putin's Russia.Any "low grade military action" taken would intensify really fast. Bad Idea. Not to mention the Ukraine situation is completely above our heads and we should have nothing to do with it.
I think Hillary would have supported something like that which is why Putin wanted his pet orangutan in the White House. Monkey boy isn't going to do sweet F. all about Putin expanding the Russian empire. There are powerful members of the Putin government that even consider Alaska part of Russia.If Clinton was for that its good for everybody that she lost. Russia is not interested in fighting America and whatever it has going on with its former Soviet states is not our problem.
The Russians are not our friends no matter what their moles in the White House keep claiming.Nor are they enemies. Not until something happens to get them angry and aggressive.
Let’s look at the actual threat that Russia represents to the west.
Constant cyber-warfare against the west at all levels, Putin just successfully attacked the US political system by placing his man in the highest office.
Support for groups attacking the US like Al Qaeda, there is evidence that Russia did in fact train top terrorists like Ayman Al-Zawahiri who planned the 9/11 attacks.
The murkiest of these relations, however, has been the connection between al-Qa’ida and Russian intelligence. While the outlines of the story have been known for years, and even admitted by Moscow and the mujahidin, details remain elusive. Moreover, asking important questions about this relationship seems to be an issue few appear interested in probing deeply, even in the United States. That Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s right-hand man and the leader of the global jihad movement since bin Laden’s death in May 2011, spent almost a half-year in the mid-1990s in the custody of Russian intelligence is admitted by both sides and is a matter of public record.[3] Just as significant, Zawahiri’s Russian sojourn occurred at a pivotal point in the development of al-Qa’ida; the shift in strategy, resulting in attacks on the “far enemy" (i.e. the United States), the road leading to 9/11, occurred after Zawahiri’s imprisonment by the Russians.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/6163502.stm
Perhaps most notably, he alleged that al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.Militarily Russia is ready to field true first strike capability with missile defense systems that reach into space that will shoot down incoming US missiles while deploying new ICBMs that are designed to defeat any US defenses. The Russians like to boast that just one of their new RS-28s ICBMs can take out the entire state of Texas. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-deadly-s-500-air-defense-system-ready-war-660000-16028
The new weapon—which will form the upper tier of Russia’s layered integrated air defense system—is expected to be able to engage targets at altitudes of about 125 miles—or 660,000 feet. That means that S-500 will be able to engage targets such as incoming ballistic missiles in space at ranges as great as 400 miles. The first regiment of S-500 will be deployed to protect Moscow and central Russia. The S-500 is expected to able to detect and simultaneously attack up to ten ballistic missile warheads flying at speeds of twenty-three thousand feet per second. It is also reportedly being designed to use hit-to-kill interceptors—a design with similarities to Lockheed Martin's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23547/russias-new-icbm-could-wipe-out-texas/
Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018. The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons. Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France. The American Minuteman III ICBM, in contrast, weighs just 39 tons and carries three warheads. Russia claims it needs missiles that can carry that many warheads in order to counter American missile defenses. The American Ground-Based Interceptor system doesn't intercept nuclear missiles themselves but rather the warheads on a ballistic trajectory towards their targets. By presenting American defenses with 10 to 16 incoming targets simultaneously, Sarmat makes the GBI system's job much more difficult. One hundred Sarmats means 1,000 to 1,600 targets. How and why would Russia use the Sarmat? Russia could use them in an offensive nuclear role to destroy American nuclear weapons, particularly those parked in hardened concrete silos in the Midwest. Potential scenarios include a Russian surprise nuclear attack on Washington, or to defang the United States if it attacked first but held back part of its nuclear arsenal.So how would a potential Russian attack against the US take place. Well first they would likely give instructions to monkey boy in the Oval Office to stand down key defense systems and weaken electronic defenses. Then large scale cyber-warfare would take down as much of the US civilian and military command as possible. And then the missiles would fly. You'd have to be a fucking moron to not see how dangerous the situation has become for the US now...
Let's look at the actual threat that Russia represents to the west. Constant cyber-warfare against the west at all levels, Putin just successfully attacked the US political system by placing his man in the highest office. Support for groups attacking the US like Al Qaeda, there is evidence that Russia did in fact train top terrorists like Ayman Al-Zawahiri who planned the 9/11 attacks. So how would a potential Russian attack against the US take place. Well first they would likely give instructions to monkey boy in the Oval Office to stand down key defense systems and weaken electronic defenses. Then large scale cyber-warfare would take down as much of the US civilian and military command as possible. And then the missiles would fly. You'd have to be a fucking moron to not see how dangerous the situation has become for the US now...Flagged for offensive language. This is the kind of toxic behavior that makes the forum scary for people.
If Clinton was for that its good for everybody that she lost. Russia is not interested in fighting America and whatever it has going on with its former Soviet states is not our problem.I couldn't agree more with you Beltane. A good peaceful partnership is with Russia is what we need. Lot of good synergy potential there. It's a win-win really. Too much "Russia Hype" going on these days. No doubt a result of extremely sour grapes from the losing Clinton/Dem factions. The corporatism war-mongers that they were. Good riddance!
Flagged for offensive language. This is the kind of toxic behavior that makes the forum scary for people.It wasn't directed at anyone but it's no surprise that a complete Trump troll named after a Russian city would show up to attack someone who's describing what a profound danger the US is in due to Russia. You comment not at all on the existential threat the US now faces but are somehow offended by language that wasn't even directed at you... And people you support make this planet a very dangerous place for all of us to live in, my words do not compare in the slightest with your actions... But why expect any sort of honesty and credibility by someone who was once claiming to be a socialist and care about humanist values and has now numbered themselves as supporters of fascists in power in the White House. Where did that Vyazma go we'd like to know... Go back to lurking in the shadows it suits you far better.