|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 10 2016 00:02 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2016 23:10 LegalLord wrote:
Sounds like he's just trying to appeal to that portion of the Republican base that thinks, "at least Russia has a strong leader like Putin instead of our weak-ass Obama."
Such is my interpretation of the context of how he says it. His fascination with dictatorial strong men doesn't bother you? Are you not worried that it is more than just politics?
No, not really, because if you look at it in the context of other Republican "peasant opinions" on the matter then it's clear that in this case that's what he is getting at.
Some things he has said sound like they come from foreign interests, but this isn't one of them.
|
Plenty of Republicans have argued that Obama's (supposed) lack of a backbone enables Putin to do things like invade Crimea. But now that Trump is overtly approving of Putin, Republicans' concerns of enablement have vanished. Hmmm...
|
So, what exactly is "conservatism" in the opinion of those who are conservatives in this thread?
|
Hillary wants to go to war with Russia over her emails and you guys attack Trump because he wants to get along with them instead.
If WW3 starts, I hope China and Russia wins.
|
On September 10 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Plenty of Republicans have argued that Obama's (supposed) lack of a backbone enables Putin to do things like invade Crimea. But now that Trump is overtly approving of Putin, Republicans' concerns of enablement have vanished. Hmmm...
Yeah, they fail to account for the war weary nation due to the Iraq war and the fact that they don’t have Obama’s back on any foreign policy issue. When Republican leadership announced they planned to oppose everything Obama does, it gives leaders like Putin room to pull the shit he did. And the fact the public has zero interest in conflict over seas.
On September 10 2016 00:23 MasterCynical wrote:
Hillary wants to go to war with Russia over her emails and you guys attack Trump because he wants to get along with them instead.
If WW3 starts, I hope China and Russia wins.
Nope. She never said that.
|
On September 10 2016 00:23 Plansix wrote:
Nope. She never said that.
Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that.
She's not the first one to say so. NATO said cyber warfare can trigger Article 5, back in July or so.
I dunno if cyber terrorism (e.g. Stuxnet) and hacking (e.g. emails) should really be lumped together though.
|
On September 10 2016 00:23 MasterCynical wrote:
Hillary wants to go to war with Russia over her emails and you guys attack Trump because he wants to get along with them instead.
If WW3 starts, I hope China and Russia wins.
If WW3 starts, China and the US will almost certainly be on the same side. Nice job spouting nonsense though 
|
On September 10 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Plenty of Republicans have argued that Obama's (supposed) lack of a backbone enables Putin to do things like invade Crimea. But now that Trump is overtly approving of Putin, Republicans' concerns of enablement have vanished. Hmmm...
I think a big difference is that they don't like Obama's lack of backbone
But its a big step from that to "Putin is a great role model" Which is more Trumps message.
You can have a backbone without having to be a dictator.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that.
They should be but that doesn't mean she's pushing for a nuclear war with Russia. All attacks should be judged individually. A hack doesn't merit all out war. If there was proof Russian state actors deliberately caused a meltdown at a nuclear power plant that wiped out a city, well, that probably would. In the same way that if a German soldier strays into Belgium that's probably no big deal but if a million of them do then we should probably look into that. Context matters. Hillary thinking that cyber attacks are like physical attacks does not mean she wants a war with Russia unless she also thinks that all minor physical attacks merit a war with Russia.
|
On September 10 2016 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Plenty of Republicans have argued that Obama's (supposed) lack of a backbone enables Putin to do things like invade Crimea. But now that Trump is overtly approving of Putin, Republicans' concerns of enablement have vanished. Hmmm... I think a big difference is that they don't like Obama's lack of backbone But its a big step from that to "Putin is a great role model" Which is more Trumps message. You can have a backbone without having to be a dictator.
It isn't as simple as "they don't like Obama's lack of backbone" because one of the chief criticisms levied towards Obama by Republicans revolves around executive overreach and Obama's "usurpation" of governmental power. Needless to say, there's a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance at play lol.
|
Apparently Trump can't even properly research the number of fighters, ships, battalions, and number of people in our active military before outlining his military plan. What a clown. Too bad it doesn't matter.
|
On September 10 2016 00:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Apparently Trump can't even properly research the number of fighters, ships, battalions, and number of people in our active military before outlining his military plan. What a clown. Too bad it doesn't matter.
"We will increase our fighter jets from 1700 to 1200"
|
On September 10 2016 00:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2016 00:23 Plansix wrote:
Nope. She never said that. Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that. They should be but that doesn't mean she's pushing for a nuclear war with Russia. All attacks should be judged individually. A hack doesn't merit all out war. If there was proof Russian state actors deliberately caused a meltdown at a nuclear power plant that wiped out a city, well, that probably would. In the same way that if a German soldier strays into Belgium that's probably no big deal but if a million of them do then we should probably look into that. Context matters. Hillary thinking that cyber attacks are like physical attacks does not mean she wants a war with Russia unless she also thinks that all minor physical attacks merit a war with Russia.
Hacking is pretty much the same as spying... you know, the kind of thing America also does to Russia. I imagine Clinton wants to put in the same sort of scope, which is a reasonable assessment aside from the fact that it's probably going to be hard to get Putin to agree to extradite Russian hacker-spies to the US for prosecution. Don't spies usually just get sent back to their country of origin these days, anyway? Again, these kind of things make me apprehensive about her level of knowledge about technology.
|
On September 10 2016 00:57 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 00:45 KwarK wrote:On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2016 00:23 Plansix wrote:
Nope. She never said that. Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that. They should be but that doesn't mean she's pushing for a nuclear war with Russia. All attacks should be judged individually. A hack doesn't merit all out war. If there was proof Russian state actors deliberately caused a meltdown at a nuclear power plant that wiped out a city, well, that probably would. In the same way that if a German soldier strays into Belgium that's probably no big deal but if a million of them do then we should probably look into that. Context matters. Hillary thinking that cyber attacks are like physical attacks does not mean she wants a war with Russia unless she also thinks that all minor physical attacks merit a war with Russia. Hacking is pretty much the same as spying... you know, the kind of thing America also does to Russia. I imagine Clinton wants to put in the same sort of scope, which is a reasonable assessment aside from the fact that it's probably going to be hard to get Putin to agree to extradite Russian hacker-spies to the US for prosecution. Don't spies usually just get sent back to their country of origin these days, anyway?
Yes and there are consequences if our spies get caught doing things, even if they get sent back after some time. Spying, like all intelligence gathering, has some unwritten rules and a sort of soft agreement that we all do it. The problem with hacking is that they do it from afar and we have little recourse. Also the US doesn’t really engage in aggressive, public hacks of other governments. We could, but right now we don’t. That could change and likely should if other nations or “rogue actors” keep this up.
|
On September 10 2016 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 00:57 a_flayer wrote:On September 10 2016 00:45 KwarK wrote:On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2016 00:23 Plansix wrote:
Nope. She never said that. Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that. They should be but that doesn't mean she's pushing for a nuclear war with Russia. All attacks should be judged individually. A hack doesn't merit all out war. If there was proof Russian state actors deliberately caused a meltdown at a nuclear power plant that wiped out a city, well, that probably would. In the same way that if a German soldier strays into Belgium that's probably no big deal but if a million of them do then we should probably look into that. Context matters. Hillary thinking that cyber attacks are like physical attacks does not mean she wants a war with Russia unless she also thinks that all minor physical attacks merit a war with Russia. Hacking is pretty much the same as spying... you know, the kind of thing America also does to Russia. I imagine Clinton wants to put in the same sort of scope, which is a reasonable assessment aside from the fact that it's probably going to be hard to get Putin to agree to extradite Russian hacker-spies to the US for prosecution. Don't spies usually just get sent back to their country of origin these days, anyway? Yes and there are consequences if our spies get caught doing things, even if they get sent back after some time. Spying, like all intelligence gathering, has some unwritten rules and a sort of soft agreement that we all do it. The problem with hacking is that they do it from afar and we have little recourse. Also the US doesn’t really engage in aggressive, public hacks of other governments. We could, but right now we don’t. That could change and likely should if other nations or “rogue actors” keep this up.
Are you putting in the word "public" just to piss me off?
|
On September 10 2016 01:11 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 10 2016 00:57 a_flayer wrote:On September 10 2016 00:45 KwarK wrote:On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2016 00:23 Plansix wrote:
Nope. She never said that. Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that. They should be but that doesn't mean she's pushing for a nuclear war with Russia. All attacks should be judged individually. A hack doesn't merit all out war. If there was proof Russian state actors deliberately caused a meltdown at a nuclear power plant that wiped out a city, well, that probably would. In the same way that if a German soldier strays into Belgium that's probably no big deal but if a million of them do then we should probably look into that. Context matters. Hillary thinking that cyber attacks are like physical attacks does not mean she wants a war with Russia unless she also thinks that all minor physical attacks merit a war with Russia. Hacking is pretty much the same as spying... you know, the kind of thing America also does to Russia. I imagine Clinton wants to put in the same sort of scope, which is a reasonable assessment aside from the fact that it's probably going to be hard to get Putin to agree to extradite Russian hacker-spies to the US for prosecution. Don't spies usually just get sent back to their country of origin these days, anyway? Yes and there are consequences if our spies get caught doing things, even if they get sent back after some time. Spying, like all intelligence gathering, has some unwritten rules and a sort of soft agreement that we all do it. The problem with hacking is that they do it from afar and we have little recourse. Also the US doesn’t really engage in aggressive, public hacks of other governments. We could, but right now we don’t. That could change and likely should if other nations or “rogue actors” keep this up. Are you putting in the word "public" just to piss me off?
No? The hacks quickly become public after they take place. I am just being clear in my language because the US could engage in hacking is less overt or prone to public announcement after discovery.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 10 2016 00:57 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 00:45 KwarK wrote:On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2016 00:23 Plansix wrote:
Nope. She never said that. Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that. They should be but that doesn't mean she's pushing for a nuclear war with Russia. All attacks should be judged individually. A hack doesn't merit all out war. If there was proof Russian state actors deliberately caused a meltdown at a nuclear power plant that wiped out a city, well, that probably would. In the same way that if a German soldier strays into Belgium that's probably no big deal but if a million of them do then we should probably look into that. Context matters. Hillary thinking that cyber attacks are like physical attacks does not mean she wants a war with Russia unless she also thinks that all minor physical attacks merit a war with Russia. Hacking is pretty much the same as spying... you know, the kind of thing America also does to Russia. I imagine Clinton wants to put in the same sort of scope, which is a reasonable assessment aside from the fact that it's probably going to be hard to get Putin to agree to extradite Russian hacker-spies to the US for prosecution. Don't spies usually just get sent back to their country of origin these days, anyway? Again, these kind of things make me apprehensive about her level of knowledge about technology.
Hacking is not pretty much the same as spying (assuming you mean purely intelligence gathering). If you hack the electricity grid and deliberately blow transformers out to cause a blackout that's closer to sabotage than spying. It's a physical attack sourced from a foreign government and it should be treated pretty much the same way as you'd treat it if they sent a guy over to bomb the things.
That doesn't mean mash the red button and blow up the world but certainly proportional responses. Hacking can be serious business.
|
|
|
On September 10 2016 01:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 00:57 a_flayer wrote:On September 10 2016 00:45 KwarK wrote:On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2016 00:23 Plansix wrote:
Nope. She never said that. Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that. They should be but that doesn't mean she's pushing for a nuclear war with Russia. All attacks should be judged individually. A hack doesn't merit all out war. If there was proof Russian state actors deliberately caused a meltdown at a nuclear power plant that wiped out a city, well, that probably would. In the same way that if a German soldier strays into Belgium that's probably no big deal but if a million of them do then we should probably look into that. Context matters. Hillary thinking that cyber attacks are like physical attacks does not mean she wants a war with Russia unless she also thinks that all minor physical attacks merit a war with Russia. Hacking is pretty much the same as spying... you know, the kind of thing America also does to Russia. I imagine Clinton wants to put in the same sort of scope, which is a reasonable assessment aside from the fact that it's probably going to be hard to get Putin to agree to extradite Russian hacker-spies to the US for prosecution. Don't spies usually just get sent back to their country of origin these days, anyway? Again, these kind of things make me apprehensive about her level of knowledge about technology. Hacking is not pretty much the same as spying (assuming you mean purely intelligence gathering). If you hack the electricity grid and deliberately blow transformers out to cause a blackout that's closer to sabotage than spying. It's a physical attack sourced from a foreign government and it should be treated pretty much the same way as you'd treat it if they sent a guy over to bomb the things. That doesn't mean mash the red button and blow up the world but certainly proportional responses. Hacking can be serious business.
While I agree that this is a possibility, I've only ever heard of the US doing something close to this kind of hacking in Iran.
On September 10 2016 01:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2016 01:11 a_flayer wrote:On September 10 2016 01:09 Plansix wrote:On September 10 2016 00:57 a_flayer wrote:On September 10 2016 00:45 KwarK wrote:On September 10 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 10 2016 00:23 Plansix wrote:
Nope. She never said that. Well she's said cyber attacks should be treated like a physical attack. That's kind of close to that. They should be but that doesn't mean she's pushing for a nuclear war with Russia. All attacks should be judged individually. A hack doesn't merit all out war. If there was proof Russian state actors deliberately caused a meltdown at a nuclear power plant that wiped out a city, well, that probably would. In the same way that if a German soldier strays into Belgium that's probably no big deal but if a million of them do then we should probably look into that. Context matters. Hillary thinking that cyber attacks are like physical attacks does not mean she wants a war with Russia unless she also thinks that all minor physical attacks merit a war with Russia. Hacking is pretty much the same as spying... you know, the kind of thing America also does to Russia. I imagine Clinton wants to put in the same sort of scope, which is a reasonable assessment aside from the fact that it's probably going to be hard to get Putin to agree to extradite Russian hacker-spies to the US for prosecution. Don't spies usually just get sent back to their country of origin these days, anyway? Yes and there are consequences if our spies get caught doing things, even if they get sent back after some time. Spying, like all intelligence gathering, has some unwritten rules and a sort of soft agreement that we all do it. The problem with hacking is that they do it from afar and we have little recourse. Also the US doesn’t really engage in aggressive, public hacks of other governments. We could, but right now we don’t. That could change and likely should if other nations or “rogue actors” keep this up. Are you putting in the word "public" just to piss me off? No? The hacks quickly become public after they take place. I am just being clear in my language because the US could engage in hacking is less overt or prone to public announcement after discovery.
I can't really parse that sentence, but I'd say the NSA program in its hacking of foreign entities is pretty aggressive, and the Iran thing was pretty aggressive as well (although I believe there was a physical component to Iran?).
Maybe we have a different understanding of what aggressive means?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
