First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Russia now a partisan issue in US politics?
14732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16

Shishiosa wrote:

The most intriguing thing of this whole deal has been the "liberal" 's i.e. "city dweller" 's total bewilderment at Trump's victory. It's so bad they're trashing around for anything to blame. The whole "it's Russia's fault" thing is classic denial behavior, until they look in the mirror and can face themselves saying "Dang, we did it" it's not going to end.

Look carefully at your last 8 years, the Obama administration has been beating the hell out of rural citizen's property rights with regulations, restricting everything from water use to outdoor lighting. Hillary screamed that she was going to continue those policies and "put miners out of business." Yet, it's "Russia's" fault.

Rural America is a lot like other parts of the world, you can only kick and beat it for so long before it strikes back, and they did.


At what point do we say "Oh maybe this isn't just about the presidency and the US has serious issues with Russia and with our cyber security"? Russia isn't a scapegoat or an excuse. They are a serious global problem. Its not that "its Russia's fault", it is that Russia is actively seeking to harm our country and Republicans seem to just be saying "lol, sore losers".

That is largely what this thread is about. People need to move past the election and look to how to deal with this issue. Its too important to be ignored.
29217 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Пенсильвания, Рес...
Offline
Posted 12/19/16
Russia is an independent nation, it is not a part of the United States nor is the United States part of it. It is a nation with it's own laws, rules, culture and traditions. Russia also has a right to defend itself as it sees fit, just as the United States does. BOTH are part of the world and actions have consequences, for all parties.

I understand that you are worried that someone interfered in the election, but you do realize this has been going on for a long time. Almost every country throws money at candidates through fronts (funny how Clinton Foundation Donations have dropped through the floor isn't it?) The American media was almost entirely in one party's pocket and ignored claims of each side about both candidate's failings. So an independent source comes along and releases materials from an email collection which was cracked, note I said cracked not hacked as they are different. Various "legitimate" but anonymous sources come forth claiming it is another country. Then along comes President Obama, who has lied to the American people repeatedly, ("if you like your health plan you can keep it" and "it was a video" to name a few) saying Hey trust me it was the Russians, I'll even invoke Ronald Regan's name to make my point about how honest I am, and you're surprised there's Americans who doubt it?? I get it, I do, outside involvement from one nation in another country's affairs is a bad thing, and IF it's true that actual outside interference that altered the outcome then action should be taken but keep in mind the last claim before "it's Russia's fault" was the loss was due to "fake news" from people who went to COMEDY Programs to make announcements.

Now, before you sit too high in your saddle of American righteousness, explain to me how is the involvement of Russia, possibly being involved in releasing honest and true statements that were being kept hidden from those involved in the choice of their leader any different than the Obama administration's direct involvement and use of American tax funds in an effort to defeat Israel's Netanyahu?
( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/ )

What you're missing is that to much of the world, and apparently many Americans this seems to be similar to a fighter that lost a fight, and then screams at the person who was sitting on the sidelines cheering the fight on for their loss. What goes around, comes around, and you should probably be more worried about Obama being involved with the effort to overthrow an elected government right now.
( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0 )
152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

MysteryMiss wrote:

I disagree i think we should not distance Russia we need to work on getting along.



I hopeTrump has more meetings with him better to have a working relationship then to cower in fear like Obama. xD


because appeasement worked so well with the last dangerous tyrant.

2120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

runec wrote:


auroraloose wrote:
This is why FiveThirtyEight fails: data is not always relevant. Sure, maybe the public wasn't all that divided on Russia for a long time, but the public doesn't implement government policy.


Er...the article is demonstrating that public opinion on a country follows the lead of government policy, not visa versa. Also I would say a historically unprecedented and completely partisan shift in opinion like this is pretty relevant data.


While you're correct that the piece mentions that presidential policy has caused recent fluctuation in opinions on Russia (that part of the piece didn't stick out to me), it also says this about opinions between 1974 and 1994:


The difference between Democrats’ and Republicans’ opinion on the country was never greater than 7 percentage points, despite long Republican campaigns of anti-Communism. The same has generally been true in recent years.


How useful is that information? And exactly what data was used to get that "7 percentage points" number? I figured I'd try finding that data, but the article links to a somewhat complicated user interface for the GSS datafile, and the article doesn't describe exactly what it did to arrive at the number it gave.

Anyway, the 7 percent number is then compared to the simple favorability question of the YouGov poll over the past weekend, and that saw only a 15 percentage point difference between Democrats and Republicans (the large majority of whom apparently don't consider Russia friendly or an ally). What if we compared this number to Democrats' and Republicans' opinions on the Reagan Doctrine during the '80s, or containment throughout the Cold War? It is those more-specific questions that actually matter - to both people and government policy. How people feel in general about Russia is going to result from a complicated jumble of issues that can't easily be disentangled, and the article neither made the case for the importance of this particular metric nor told us what the size of differences of opinion actually means. Is 7 percent all that different from 15 percent? The slopes of the plots of Democratic and Republican opinion from 1974-1994 and from 2013-16 are actually comparable, and we're told nothing about fluctuations over time periods shorter than a year. (I wonder where everyone making fun of Romney in 2012 for worrying about Russia fits in all this; the plot conveniently starts in 2013.) I'd think the most relevant question to ask would be partisan opinion on the Reagan Doctrine during the 1984 election, as that was when Ted Kennedy tried to get the Soviet Union to intervene. That's the closest parallel to what's going on now.

So when I read this article, I wanted to see a reason to consider this effect actually significant, and it didn't do any of the things it needed to do to convince me of that. It does seem like public opinion of Russia is fluctuating more than it did in the past; that's the only thing I can really tell is significant.

I'd also like to discuss your use of the words 'historically unprecedented." To call something historically unprecedented is really a value judgment, indicating the priorities of the person making the statement. For example, there has never before been this many people alive on the planet, the number of superhero movies seems to be on the rise, and there now exists an enormous number of Lego pieces. Not all of those are equally important, though perhaps all of them could be called unprecedented. The reason you think this possible partisan division in opinion on Russia is important is because people are talking about it like it's important, and the reason FiveThirtyEight and others are doing so is this: It's easier to skate along with nice narratives than it is to think deeply about what's important. I think these articles can rightly be called fake news, because they suck us into wasting time on topics that aren't relevant - and by their very existence trick us into thinking the topics are relevant.
Ejanss 
16493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16

Xxanthar wrote:


mxdan wrote:


Are you mocking Christianity?


No, he's just recycling a lame 90's Kevin Smith meme, because they're more interesting than your pull-string posts...

(But, y'knowww, not by much.)
2120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

runec wrote:

....yes, cus its literally the basis of the whole article: Public opinion on countries fluctuating following government behaviour towards the countries in question. I don't see how or why that's so shocking. You do remember the Bush years do you not?




choppin_broccoli wrote:

yeah, as usual my point is at some sort of cruising altitude above your head.

is it *that* hard to understand what I type, bro? you seem to be having one hell of a time with it, you just about cant ever pick out the main idea of the paragraph.


While I think runec missed the distinction between the public's general opinion and its opinion on specific questions, and that the article doesn't show how to go from those two to partisan differences of opinion, you seem to be missing quite a bit more than that, choppin_broccoli. I have no idea what you're trying to say, either, and you don't seem to care to explain yourself. If you're going to laugh at people, at least justify yourself. runec caught me not noticing that the article itself said that government policy affects public opinion, which means he/she contributed something useful, not something laughable.
2120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 12/19/16

sundin13 wrote:


Shishiosa wrote:

The most intriguing thing of this whole deal has been the "liberal" 's i.e. "city dweller" 's total bewilderment at Trump's victory. It's so bad they're trashing around for anything to blame. The whole "it's Russia's fault" thing is classic denial behavior, until they look in the mirror and can face themselves saying "Dang, we did it" it's not going to end.

Look carefully at your last 8 years, the Obama administration has been beating the hell out of rural citizen's property rights with regulations, restricting everything from water use to outdoor lighting. Hillary screamed that she was going to continue those policies and "put miners out of business." Yet, it's "Russia's" fault.

Rural America is a lot like other parts of the world, you can only kick and beat it for so long before it strikes back, and they did.


At what point do we say "Oh maybe this isn't just about the presidency and the US has serious issues with Russia and with our cyber security"? Russia isn't a scapegoat or an excuse. They are a serious global problem. Its not that "its Russia's fault", it is that Russia is actively seeking to harm our country and Republicans seem to just be saying "lol, sore losers".

That is largely what this thread is about. People need to move past the election and look to how to deal with this issue. Its too important to be ignored.


I am not sure I agree that people need to move past the election. I also do not think that the FiveThirtyEight article, or this discussion, are doing that. I would be somewhat more likely to believe it if people didn't make fun of Romney in 2012 for pointing out that Russia is dangerous, and if you didn't also say, "and Republicans seem to just be saying 'lol, sore losers'". Congress seems to be taking Russia seriously, and we (if not myself) are being sore losers talking so much about Russia.
35337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 12/20/16

auroraloose wrote:
How useful is that information? And exactly what data was used to get that "7 percentage points" number? I figured I'd try finding that data, but the article links to a somewhat complicated user interface for the GSS datafile, and the article doesn't describe exactly what it did to arrive at the number it gave.


The article does seem to demonstrate that the people follow the president's lead to some degree opinion wise. As for the Reagan Doctrine it was contentious yes but I don't think there was any disagreement that the Cold War was occurring. I think that's the key factor here. Both sides aren't reacting to the same event. One side is reacting to an event. The other is categorically denying the event even happened and essentially going the polar opposite route in terms of rhetoric. Having a president elect who is not only 100% divorced from reality in his public opinion but also shooting messengers left right and center is uncharted territory.

The part I was referring too as unprecedented was having such a wide partisan gulf in such a relatively short span of time. That aligns with the rhetoric going on. Its a clear break from historical trends so finding historical parallels in the same category is difficult. Especially for a party ( Republicans ) who have had a long and storied history of animosity towards Russia.




Posted 12/20/16

auroraloose wrote:


runec wrote:

....yes, cus its literally the basis of the whole article: Public opinion on countries fluctuating following government behaviour towards the countries in question. I don't see how or why that's so shocking. You do remember the Bush years do you not?




choppin_broccoli wrote:

yeah, as usual my point is at some sort of cruising altitude above your head.

is it *that* hard to understand what I type, bro? you seem to be having one hell of a time with it, you just about cant ever pick out the main idea of the paragraph.


While I think runec missed the distinction between the public's general opinion and its opinion on specific questions, and that the article doesn't show how to go from those two to partisan differences of opinion, you seem to be missing quite a bit more than that, choppin_broccoli. I have no idea what you're trying to say, either, and you don't seem to care to explain yourself. If you're going to laugh at people, at least justify yourself. runec caught me not noticing that the article itself said that government policy affects public opinion, which means he/she contributed something useful, not something laughable.


Well, if that's the entirety of your context, I can see you how might draw that conclusion. But its not the first, second, or third time I've been making fun of runec for the media wagging him all over the place, wherever they want to wag him, he follows.

It was just some rich irony for him to write what I quoted in light of all this. Someone in the media writes it, and then all of a sudden it makes sense to him....hilarious if it werent so sad and all too common.
Posted 12/20/16

Shishiosa wrote:

Russia is an independent nation, it is not a part of the United States nor is the United States part of it. It is a nation with it's own laws, rules, culture and traditions. Russia also has a right to defend itself as it sees fit, just as the United States does. BOTH are part of the world and actions have consequences, for all parties.

I understand that you are worried that someone interfered in the election, but you do realize this has been going on for a long time. Almost every country throws money at candidates through fronts (funny how Clinton Foundation Donations have dropped through the floor isn't it?) The American media was almost entirely in one party's pocket and ignored claims of each side about both candidate's failings. So an independent source comes along and releases materials from an email collection which was cracked, note I said cracked not hacked as they are different. Various "legitimate" but anonymous sources come forth claiming it is another country. Then along comes President Obama, who has lied to the American people repeatedly, ("if you like your health plan you can keep it" and "it was a video" to name a few) saying Hey trust me it was the Russians, I'll even invoke Ronald Regan's name to make my point about how honest I am, and you're surprised there's Americans who doubt it?? I get it, I do, outside involvement from one nation in another country's affairs is a bad thing, and IF it's true that actual outside interference that altered the outcome then action should be taken but keep in mind the last claim before "it's Russia's fault" was the loss was due to "fake news" from people who went to COMEDY Programs to make announcements.

Now, before you sit too high in your saddle of American righteousness, explain to me how is the involvement of Russia, possibly being involved in releasing honest and true statements that were being kept hidden from those involved in the choice of their leader any different than the Obama administration's direct involvement and use of American tax funds in an effort to defeat Israel's Netanyahu?
( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/ )

What you're missing is that to much of the world, and apparently many Americans this seems to be similar to a fighter that lost a fight, and then screams at the person who was sitting on the sidelines cheering the fight on for their loss. What goes around, comes around, and you should probably be more worried about Obama being involved with the effort to overthrow an elected government right now.
( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0 )


Good post +1
Posted 12/20/16

sundin13 wrote:


At what point do we say "Oh maybe this isn't just about the presidency and the US has serious issues with Russia and with our cyber security"? Russia isn't a scapegoat or an excuse. They are a serious global problem. Its not that "its Russia's fault", it is that Russia is actively seeking to harm our country and Republicans seem to just be saying "lol, sore losers".

That is largely what this thread is about. People need to move past the election and look to how to deal with this issue. Its too important to be ignored.


LOL....the USA is FAR more of a "serious global problem" than Russia is.




FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO SYRIA:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

by Dr. Zoltan Grossman

COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Forces Comments
SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

MEXICO

HONDURAS


1923

1924-25


Bombing

Troops


Airpower defends Calles from rebellion

Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Army & Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gassing of captured ship Mayagüez, 28 troops die when copter shot down.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-11 Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army. Periodic Special Forces raids against Islamist insurgents.
IRAQ 2014-? Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation

Air strikes and Special Forces intervene against Islamic State insurgents; training Iraqi and Kurdish troops.
SYRIA 2014-? Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation

Air strikes and Special Forces intervene against Islamic State insurgents; training other Syrian insurgents.
Posted 12/20/16
Oh, this one I completely forgot to mention in this context recently...

If we want to talk about hacks...why dont we talk about why Microsoft gave the NSA its very own root key certificate to the windows operating systems? This means no hacking necessary, they can legitimately authenticate to any Windows OS with no obstruction whatsoever.

(If anyone wondered why those win98 SE updates were so critically important...this was where it was first implemented...so yes, this necessarily means WinME, 2000, XP, 7, 8, 10, the whole lot.... )
14732 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Online
Posted 12/20/16

auroraloose wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Shishiosa wrote:

The most intriguing thing of this whole deal has been the "liberal" 's i.e. "city dweller" 's total bewilderment at Trump's victory. It's so bad they're trashing around for anything to blame. The whole "it's Russia's fault" thing is classic denial behavior, until they look in the mirror and can face themselves saying "Dang, we did it" it's not going to end.

Look carefully at your last 8 years, the Obama administration has been beating the hell out of rural citizen's property rights with regulations, restricting everything from water use to outdoor lighting. Hillary screamed that she was going to continue those policies and "put miners out of business." Yet, it's "Russia's" fault.

Rural America is a lot like other parts of the world, you can only kick and beat it for so long before it strikes back, and they did.


At what point do we say "Oh maybe this isn't just about the presidency and the US has serious issues with Russia and with our cyber security"? Russia isn't a scapegoat or an excuse. They are a serious global problem. Its not that "its Russia's fault", it is that Russia is actively seeking to harm our country and Republicans seem to just be saying "lol, sore losers".

That is largely what this thread is about. People need to move past the election and look to how to deal with this issue. Its too important to be ignored.


I am not sure I agree that people need to move past the election. I also do not think that the FiveThirtyEight article, or this discussion, are doing that. I would be somewhat more likely to believe it if people didn't make fun of Romney in 2012 for pointing out that Russia is dangerous, and if you didn't also say, "and Republicans seem to just be saying 'lol, sore losers'". Congress seems to be taking Russia seriously, and we (if not myself) are being sore losers talking so much about Russia.


Why shouldn't people move past the election? It is over. Now is no longer the time for the country to fight amongst itself, it is time for us to move forward as a united front in an attempt to make the country safer and better.

Also, when I speak about "Republicans" I should clarify that I am speaking more about the people, not the government. My complaint is not that elected Republicans aren't taking Russia seriously, it is that discussion is hindered by those on the "winning" side not taking these issues seriously (and unfortunately that seems to also be true for our soon to be president)
11273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/20/16
Where do I sign up for the death squads?

2120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 12/20/16

sundin13 wrote:
Why shouldn't people move past the election? It is over. Now is no longer the time for the country to fight amongst itself, it is time for us to move forward as a united front in an attempt to make the country safer and better.


One can move past something by forgetting about it - hence neglecting to learn its lessons. I see very few people realizing how much their respective news sources pushed them in bad directions, and I don't see either side putting in a concerted effort to remedy this.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.