Sanctions on Russia

[One Bad Pig]

Yes it is exactly that. The Trump clones are an "island unto themselves" surrounded on all sides

I'm impressed by how many logical fallacies you managed to cram into so small a space here.

by those that see the hacking etc

Cyber espionage is not hacking.

for the disinformation campaign

Exposing dirt is not disinformation if it's not, you know, false.

orchestrated by Russia

allegedly

that it was...including senior members of their own party.

You mean, NeverTrumpers.

They have every reason to be concerned, next time it could be them.

The RNC was attacked, too - they just had competent cyber security. And, of course, if there's no dirt to expose, then the attacks don't accomplish anything even if they're successful. The RNC wasn't collaborating with the press, or walling out a candidate challenging their anointed one, or disparaging classes of voters....

[elam]

How exactly are you defining "conventional war"? Because I can easily think of wars the US won; the Korean War was in the last 70 years.

The Korean war is ongoing, though a cease fire is in force. It ended in stalemate, there were no winners. In any case it was a UN intervention (21 countries), not a USA intervention, though the USA led the contingent on behalf of the UN.

And even more recently, I'm not sure what was not conventional about the Iraq War. The US invaded and deposed the regime; that's a fairly conventional victory. There might have been a lot of problems after the fact, but the war itself was absolutely won. Sure, it was short, but I don't think a war being a curb stomp makes it not "conventional."

Again Iraq wasn't won. Just getting rid of a ruler doesn't end a war. Sectarian violence continued. To make matters worse the invasion caused an insurgency against the invaders (the Americans). Hostilities continued after the USA officially left in 2011 (they hired mercenaries to replace their forces). And it was far from short, USA involvement lasted 8 years and all USA involvement did was cause chaos, which continues to this day. Due to the pressure of public opinion Obama withdrew the troops prematurely with the conflict unresolved.

And there was discussion about the danger of a Trump presidency leading to that also. Spreading paranoia that the opponent will start World War III as a political tactic goes back at least to 1964, when Lyndon Johnson aired that famous "Daisy" ad.

I don't recall Trump making mention of Clinton causing WW3 (maybe he did (?)). However, in the international conservative press, it was a regular topic of conversation as a distinct possibility. Trump was seen as a big question mark.

[elam]

Interesting that this comes right when Russia and Turkey broker a truce in Syria with al-qaeda forces. But I'm sure this was just another in series of coincidences lol.

I find it enlightening that the cease fire was made possible by excluding Kerry from the talks. Huge loss of face for the Obama regime.

Though ithe USA will be invited to the peace talks along with Egypt, Jordan and a range of regional players...

[Darth Executor]

Yes it is exactly that. The Trump clones are an "island unto themselves" surrounded on all sides by those that see the hacking etc for the disinformation campaign orchestrated by Russia that it was...including senior members of their own party. They have every reason to be concerned, next time it could be them.

Unlike you idiots nothing would make me happier than to have russia (or anybody else) hack the RNC and expose their corruption or their attempts to underhandedly destroy my candidate. So no, we don't really have any reason to be concerned.

[elam]

I'm an outsider looking in, from where I sit, if the Russians did hack then all they did was reveal the corruption of Hillary & the Democrats. If I was an American I'd be more angry at those people than the hackers.

[elam]

Interesting how Trump and his acolytes seem to be the only people among both the GOP and DNC that have no problem with the interference of a hostile power in the democratic elections in the USA. Why is this one wonders.

Because the USA does it every second of every day (hacking). By example: Here, near the middle of Australia, out in the desert, is a top secret American spy facility called Pine Gap that monitors all satellite traffic (telephony etc). Just a verifiable fact!

Also, the USA has a long history of interfering in other countries affairs & elections - they are very big on assassinations or smearing dirt when people inconvenience American interests. Just a verifiable fact!

[Mountain Man]

Thankfully Putin is smarter than Obama and is simply waiting until a more sensible man is sitting in the Oval Office while Obama spends his last days as president acting like a petulant child throwing his toys out of the crib.

[Terraceth]

The Korean war is ongoing, though a cease fire is in force. It ended in stalemate, there were no winners.

Sure there were. South Korea maintained independence and North Korea didn't take it over. Something doesn't stop being a victory just because technically it hasn't "officially" ended.

In any case it was a UN intervention (21 countries), not a USA intervention, though the USA led the contingent on behalf of the UN.

By this logic the US never won a war in its history outside of maybe when it went up against the Native Americans or Mexicans. It was one of multiple countries in both World Wars, the Civil War was against itself, "the War of 1812" was part of a larger conflict in which it was a bit player, and the Revolutionary War involved France being on its side.

Again Iraq wasn't won. Just getting rid of a ruler doesn't end a war.

It didn't get rid of the ruler. It got rid of the whole government.

Sectarian violence continued. To make matters worse the invasion caused an insurgency against the invaders (the Americans). Hostilities continued after the USA officially left in 2011 (they hired mercenaries to replace their forces).

All of this took place after the war.

And it was far from short, USA involvement lasted 8 years

It was involved with the country for 8 years. The war itself was over very quickly.

You seem to be trying to define the end of a war so oddly strictly that of course you can just go ahead and claim it didn't win wars because your definition of "victory" is so weirdly specific. It went into the country, deposed the government, as was the goal. Then the war was won.

and all USA involvement did was cause chaos, which continues to this day. Due to the pressure of public opinion Obama withdrew the troops prematurely with the conflict unresolved.

There being bad consequences to the end of a war does not mean the war was not over. Unless you're going to try to argue World War I didn't end because some of the goofups in the resolution helped cause World War II.

I don't recall Trump making mention of Clinton causing WW3 (maybe he did (?)). However, in the international conservative press, it was a regular topic of conversation as a distinct possibility. Trump was seen as a big question mark.

I'm not talking about Trump saying it specifically (maybe he did, who knows). But it was a fear I saw expressed by a number of people.

[Tassman]

I'm an outsider looking in, from where I sit, if the Russians did hack then all they did was reveal the corruption of Hillary & the Democrats. If I was an American I'd be more angry at those people than the hackers.

We really need to get past the politics of this because if even a small piece of what is alleged about this Russian activity is true, it is utterly unacceptable. All sides of the US political spectrum recognise this with the exception of Trump himself and for obvious reasons. He benefited from the Russian interference and no doubt we will see Russia rewarded in due course with the lifting of sanctions and in other ways.

[Mountain Man]

I'm an outsider looking in, from where I sit, if the Russians did hack then all they did was reveal the corruption of Hillary & the Democrats. If I was an American I'd be more angry at those people than the hackers.

Bingo. As I've said before, our media did everything they could to smear Trump and prop up Hillary to the point of being studiously disinterested in anything that might put her in any sort of bad light. If Russia really did leak a few emails exposing her and the Democrat party's corruption (and there's no hard evidence that they actually did) then they basically did the job that our own media should have done.

[Tassman]

Bingo. As I've said before, our media did everything they could to smear Trump and prop up Hillary to the point of being studiously disinterested in anything that might put her in any sort of bad light.

If Russia really did leak a few emails exposing her and the Democrat party's corruption (and there's no hard evidence that they actually did)

then they basically did the job that our own media should have done.

[Mountain Man]

There are times I think you really can't be this stupid. Then other times I think you really can be. The claim that "nothing has been proved against Hillary" is about as fake as fake news gets. The only reason Hillary hasn't been prosecuted for her easily provable crimes is because Washington is far too corrupt to hold its own accountable. Anybody but Hillary would have been in jail months ago based on Comey's testimony alone. For that matter, people have been thrown in jail for far less.

And again with the "17 leading US agencies" fake news. What agencies? Who from those agencies has gone on record to make these accusations? Let's hear some names. What specific evidence implicates Russia? What precisely did Russia do, and how precisely did it influence our elections or threaten our national security? This Russian hacking narrative has been going on for a couple of months at least, but we're no closer to getting answers than when it was first trotted out to explain why Hillary was humiliated on election night. And now we have Obama petulantly issuing sanctions against Russia which Putin has wisely responded to with a smirk while reminding our Manchild-in-Chief that he's a lame duck president.

Anyway, even if Russia did what they've been accused of (and there's no hard evidence that they did), it's not an act of war, you dope. And it's certainly no worse than what the US has done in other countries. Remember Obama and his cronies openly and actively campaigning to stop Netanyahu from being reelected? Was that an act of war against Israel? According to your argument it was, so where's your moral outrage that Obama openly committed an act of war against one of our allies?

Oh, but I'm asking you to be consistent, and if there's one thing I know about liberals, it's that they're anything but consistent.

[firstfloor]

Thankfully Putin is smarter than Obama and is simply waiting until a more sensible man is sitting in the Oval Office while Obama spends his last days as president acting like a petulant child throwing his toys out of the crib.

[Tassman]

There are times I think you really can't be this stupid. Then other times I think you really can be. The claim that "nothing has been proved against Hillary" is about as fake as fake news gets. The only reason Hillary hasn't been prosecuted for her easily provable crimes is because Washington is far too corrupt to hold its own accountable. Anybody but Hillary would have been in jail months ago based on Comey's testimony alone. For that matter, people have been thrown in jail for far less.

You just hold on to you conspiracy theories if they make you happy. The fact is that despite the best efforts of many Hillary has not been indited nor has she died of some dread disease as confidentiality predicted by the likes of you.

And again with the "17 leading US agencies" fake news. What agencies? Who from those agencies has gone on record to make these accusations? Let's hear some names. What specific evidence implicates Russia? What precisely did Russia do, and how precisely did it influence our elections or threaten our national security? This Russian hacking narrative has been going on for a couple of months at least, but we're no closer to getting answers than when it was first trotted out to explain why Hillary was humiliated on election night.

A growing number of senior figures , including Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, are calling for a bipartisan probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential vote based upon evidence of 17 agencies including the CIA. Interesting that you choose to side with Putin and his stooge rather than the USA. Clearly NO evidence will be sufficient to convince you.

And now we have Obama petulantly issuing sanctions against Russia which Putin has wisely responded to with a smirk while reminding our Manchild-in-Chief that he's a lame duck president.

Breitbart!!!

Putin's "wise smirk" is as characteristically loathsome, menacing, sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find. And typical!

Anyway, even if Russia did what they've been accused of (and there's no hard evidence that they did), it's not an act of war, you dope. And it's certainly no worse than what the US has done in other countries. Remember Obama and his cronies openly and actively campaigning to stop Netanyahu from being reelected? Was that an act of war against Israel? According to your argument it was, so where's your moral outrage that Obama openly committed an act of war against one of our allies?

Oh, but I'm asking you to be consistent, and if there's one thing I know about liberals, it's that they're anything but consistent.

More Breitbart!

Interfering with the internal workings of another country with the intent to undermine it's system of government is by any definition an act of war, just as supporting such an attempt is treasonous no matter what Steve Bannon (Trump adviser and Breitbart Editor) has to say OR how how much it may benefit the Trump family business.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, I've referenced Breitbart. Now how about you actually deal with the facts they reported instead of desperately reaching for the genetic fallacy?

Look, I will gladly condemn Russia as soon as someone presents hard evidence that they did anything worth condemning.