|
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. |
On December 20 2016 02:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. I don't know if the war was "well conceived" at any point in its process. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. As to the soundness of the plan, I think most people were in a "this sounds dangerous, I am trusting the white house and the intelligence community on this, but this sounds super sketch." Not on this side of the pond. The vast majority were "umm, show us your evidence". And then there was a blurry photo of a truck driving out of a warehouse and Colin Powell saying "there are WMDs on that truck". And everybody looked at that and said "huh?"... and then our governments went to war.
Not sure which governments you're referring to but the Iraq war was mostly done by the US and GB with a little help from Australia and Poland.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 20 2016 04:03 Doodsmack wrote:Lifting the sanctions from Russia right now, which is what Trump and Tillerson want to do, amounts to backing down from Russia. I don't know why they're so eager to send a signal of cowardice. There's a nice little correlation though involving the sanctions and their financial interests  .
Look at it this way:
1. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea. That's a done deal and pretty much everyone who knows about the issue knows that that is simply a reality of the situation.
2. The ability to solve the civil war through military means has come and gone. The Ukrainian army got destroyed, they now have nothing short of a revolt brewing back in Kiev, and the breakaway regions now have the equivalent of a standing army. Good military personnel are disproportionately pro-Russian in Ukraine.
3. Europe is faltering in its desire for more sanctions - if not the centrist coalition (which is faltering too), then absolutely, definitely the more populist trend.
4. US has very minor economic ties with Russia and if Europe says no more sanctions, then sanctions have no more reason to exist.
5. The desire to push the US's anti-Russia policy simply isn't there in most of Europe, even in nations that are not particularly inclined to be fond of Russia. It hurts their economy hard.
6. I've heard rumors that people think that Minsk II isn't going to work because it's a Catch 22 agreement, and the reality is that Ukraine has to negotiate with Russia directly, not through Minsk, if it wants any results. Which will almost necessarily mean falling back into Russia's orbit.
7. Related but not strictly tied to will for sanctions, people don't seem to be really looking for a black hole the magnitude of Greece but the size of Italy to add to the EU liability list.
Sanctions didn't really work. It's probably time to come to terms with that in the most face-saving way possible.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 20 2016 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount ( alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS. Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down. I think its more that the US leadership don't have an actual plan of an endgame in the middle east. They are busy putting out fires when they should decide what they actually want from the region.
US basically says "we'll fix issue X and figure out how to deal with side effect Y later" and then side effect Y turns into a problem at least as big as issue X. Ad infinitum, and there really isn't a great follow-up plan there.
On December 20 2016 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Assad is not the winner in any scenario one can think of, he no longer has an army just two private armies sitting in his country which is now ashes and rubble. Meanwhile Lebanon, Iran, and Russia are going to expect payments in some form one way or another. Millions are displaced, wounded, and hundreds of thousands are dead just on his side alone which means taking care of those that fought fore him and their families and if he can't provide that basic service, guess what.
At this point the best Syria could hope for is simply to end the war. That might be "lose less" but it is definitely the best that could be done.
|
On December 20 2016 04:18 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 02:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. I don't know if the war was "well conceived" at any point in its process. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. As to the soundness of the plan, I think most people were in a "this sounds dangerous, I am trusting the white house and the intelligence community on this, but this sounds super sketch." Not on this side of the pond. The vast majority were "umm, show us your evidence". And then there was a blurry photo of a truck driving out of a warehouse and Colin Powell saying "there are WMDs on that truck". And everybody looked at that and said "huh?"... and then our governments went to war. Not sure which governments you're referring to but the Iraq war was mostly done by the US and GB with a little help from Australia and Poland.
Spain sent troops. The Dutch officially supported the war (and sent "support"). In general, the only country that really said no was France, and they got Freedom Fried over it. Germany was more diplomatic about their refusal, I guess.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
On December 20 2016 04:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 03:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 20 2016 02:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters. Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress. Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s. Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating. I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one. The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq). After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success. As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible.Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be. I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount ( alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS. Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down. I think its more that the US leadership don't have an actual plan of an endgame in the middle east. They are busy putting out fires when they should decide what they actually want from the region. US basically says "we'll fix issue X and figure out how to deal with side effect Y later" and then side effect Y turns into a problem at least as big as issue X. Ad infinitum, and there really isn't a great follow-up plan there. Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Assad is not the winner in any scenario one can think of, he no longer has an army just two private armies sitting in his country which is now ashes and rubble. Meanwhile Lebanon, Iran, and Russia are going to expect payments in some form one way or another. Millions are displaced, wounded, and hundreds of thousands are dead just on his side alone which means taking care of those that fought fore him and their families and if he can't provide that basic service, guess what. At this point the best Syria could hope for is simply to end the war. That might be "lose less" but it is definitely the best that could be done.
Foreign Policy: This has been a repeating trend for the entire existence of the United States.
Syria: There is no middle ground solution (our current plan) in that we either say that we don't give a fuck about syrians or we put boots on the ground. Middling solutions where we bomb shit but don't plant flags is absolutely useless.
|
On December 20 2016 04:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:03 Doodsmack wrote:Lifting the sanctions from Russia right now, which is what Trump and Tillerson want to do, amounts to backing down from Russia. I don't know why they're so eager to send a signal of cowardice. There's a nice little correlation though involving the sanctions and their financial interests . Look at it this way: 1. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea. That's a done deal and pretty much everyone who knows about the issue knows that that is simply a reality of the situation. 2. The ability to solve the civil war through military means has come and gone. The Ukrainian army got destroyed, they now have nothing short of a revolt brewing back in Kiev, and the breakaway regions now have the equivalent of a standing army. Good military personnel are disproportionately pro-Russian in Ukraine. 3. Europe is faltering in its desire for more sanctions - if not the centrist coalition (which is faltering too), then absolutely, definitely the more populist trend. 4. US has very minor economic ties with Russia and if Europe says no more sanctions, then sanctions have no more reason to exist. 5. The desire to push the US's anti-Russia policy simply isn't there in most of Europe, even in nations that are not particularly inclined to be fond of Russia. It hurts their economy hard. 6. I've heard rumors that people think that Minsk II isn't going to work because it's a Catch 22 agreement, and the reality is that Ukraine has to negotiate with Russia directly, not through Minsk, if it wants any results. Which will almost necessarily mean falling back into Russia's orbit. 7. Related but not strictly tied to will for sanctions, people don't seem to be really looking for a black hole the magnitude of Greece but the size of Italy to add to the EU liability list. Sanctions didn't really work. It's probably time to come to terms with that in the most face-saving way possible.
My impression is the sanctions are meant to exert pressure on Russia, which we should do in any non-military way we can, which does not leave a whole lot of options. And it's not just Ukraine now, it's the election hacking, the bombing of aid convoys in Syria, etc. So sure, the sanctions have not resulted in Russia backing down, but by lifting sanctions we would still just be sending a signal of backing down in the face of offenses. Unless Russia is willing to make some major concessions elsewhere, but Trump's signals seem to be more of "let bygones be bygones". So Russia's offenses are permissible I guess. On the other hand with China, everything is on the negotiating table including the One China policy.
|
Former President Bill Clinton mocked President-elect Donald Trump’s intelligence, said “angry, white men” helped secure his victory and blamed FBI Director James Comey for Hillary Clinton’s November defeat during a spontaneous Q-and-A at a New York bookstore earlier this month.
...
“He doesn’t know much,” Clinton said when asked if Trump was smart. “One thing he does know is how to get angry, white men to vote for him.”
...
“James Comey cost her the election,” Clinton said during the lengthy discussion.
Clinton also said he believed the allegations that Russia was responsible for a series of pre-election hacks that revealed embarrassing – and politically damaging – acts by some prominent Democrats associated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
“You would need to have a single-digit IQ not to recognize what was going on,” Clinton said.
Fox News
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 20 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:18 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 04:03 Doodsmack wrote:Lifting the sanctions from Russia right now, which is what Trump and Tillerson want to do, amounts to backing down from Russia. I don't know why they're so eager to send a signal of cowardice. There's a nice little correlation though involving the sanctions and their financial interests . Look at it this way: 1. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea. That's a done deal and pretty much everyone who knows about the issue knows that that is simply a reality of the situation. 2. The ability to solve the civil war through military means has come and gone. The Ukrainian army got destroyed, they now have nothing short of a revolt brewing back in Kiev, and the breakaway regions now have the equivalent of a standing army. Good military personnel are disproportionately pro-Russian in Ukraine. 3. Europe is faltering in its desire for more sanctions - if not the centrist coalition (which is faltering too), then absolutely, definitely the more populist trend. 4. US has very minor economic ties with Russia and if Europe says no more sanctions, then sanctions have no more reason to exist. 5. The desire to push the US's anti-Russia policy simply isn't there in most of Europe, even in nations that are not particularly inclined to be fond of Russia. It hurts their economy hard. 6. I've heard rumors that people think that Minsk II isn't going to work because it's a Catch 22 agreement, and the reality is that Ukraine has to negotiate with Russia directly, not through Minsk, if it wants any results. Which will almost necessarily mean falling back into Russia's orbit. 7. Related but not strictly tied to will for sanctions, people don't seem to be really looking for a black hole the magnitude of Greece but the size of Italy to add to the EU liability list. Sanctions didn't really work. It's probably time to come to terms with that in the most face-saving way possible. My impression is the sanctions are meant to exert pressure on Russia, which we should do in any non-military way we can, which does not leave a whole lot of options. And it's not just Ukraine now, it's the election hacking, the bombing of aid convoys in Syria, etc. So sure, the sanctions have not resulted in Russia backing down, but by lifting sanctions we would still just be sending a signal of backing down in the face of offenses. Unless Russia is willing to make some major concessions elsewhere, but Trump's signals seem to be more of "let bygones be bygones". So Russia's offenses are permissible I guess. On the other hand with China, everything is on the negotiating table including the One China policy.
Europe will crack well before Russia does, even if you do take a "Russia is hurting from sanctions" approach to this (the effect is honestly quite mixed; many industries benefit a lot from sanctions). Europeans simply don't want to play the sanctions game anymore and I'm really not sure if they are going to extend them again in 2017. Merkel and Hollande and Cameron went along with it for the longest time, but... yeah. It might just break down very soon.
End of 2017 is when I expect sanctions to ultimately fail. The strain gets more and more noticeable each passing 6-month extension. The current sanction extension is visibly fractured, and it's clear that some big leaders are looking for a face-saving exit from them.
|
On December 20 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On December 20 2016 04:18 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 04:03 Doodsmack wrote:Lifting the sanctions from Russia right now, which is what Trump and Tillerson want to do, amounts to backing down from Russia. I don't know why they're so eager to send a signal of cowardice. There's a nice little correlation though involving the sanctions and their financial interests . Look at it this way: 1. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea. That's a done deal and pretty much everyone who knows about the issue knows that that is simply a reality of the situation. 2. The ability to solve the civil war through military means has come and gone. The Ukrainian army got destroyed, they now have nothing short of a revolt brewing back in Kiev, and the breakaway regions now have the equivalent of a standing army. Good military personnel are disproportionately pro-Russian in Ukraine. 3. Europe is faltering in its desire for more sanctions - if not the centrist coalition (which is faltering too), then absolutely, definitely the more populist trend. 4. US has very minor economic ties with Russia and if Europe says no more sanctions, then sanctions have no more reason to exist. 5. The desire to push the US's anti-Russia policy simply isn't there in most of Europe, even in nations that are not particularly inclined to be fond of Russia. It hurts their economy hard. 6. I've heard rumors that people think that Minsk II isn't going to work because it's a Catch 22 agreement, and the reality is that Ukraine has to negotiate with Russia directly, not through Minsk, if it wants any results. Which will almost necessarily mean falling back into Russia's orbit. 7. Related but not strictly tied to will for sanctions, people don't seem to be really looking for a black hole the magnitude of Greece but the size of Italy to add to the EU liability list. Sanctions didn't really work. It's probably time to come to terms with that in the most face-saving way possible. My impression is the sanctions are meant to exert pressure on Russia, which we should do in any non-military way we can, which does not leave a whole lot of options. And it's not just Ukraine now, it's the election hacking, the bombing of aid convoys in Syria, etc. So sure, the sanctions have not resulted in Russia backing down, but by lifting sanctions we would still just be sending a signal of backing down in the face of offenses. Unless Russia is willing to make some major concessions elsewhere, but Trump's signals seem to be more of "let bygones be bygones". So Russia's offenses are permissible I guess. On the other hand with China, everything is on the negotiating table including the One China policy. Europe will crack well before Russia does, even if you do take a "Russia is hurting from sanctions" approach to this (the effect is honestly quite mixed; many industries benefit a lot from sanctions). Europeans simply don't want to play the sanctions game anymore and I'm really not sure if they are going to extend them again in 2017. Merkel and Hollande and Cameron went along with it for the longest time, but... yeah. It might just break down very soon. End of 2017 is when I expect sanctions to ultimately fail. The strain gets more and more noticeable each passing 6-month extension. The current sanction extension is visibly fractured, and it's clear that some big leaders are looking for a face-saving exit from them.
I'm really having trouble pinning down what you're saying. It seems like you're saying:
1) The sanctions are trying to achieve an impossible goal, so lets drop them.
2) Europe probably won't support our sanctions, let's just give up.
But then you go to
3) Sanctions probably help Russia anyway.
Doesn't 3 contradict everything else about this pretty intensely? If sanctions help Russia, why do they want them lifted? Maybe we should lift sanctions to pressure them about Crimea?
Notably you ignore two important aspects here, first that DT's vested interests in Russia make it impossible to judge this impartially, and more importantly, that recognizing an illegitimate annexation by an expansionist power because you can't convince them to stop and you want to get along with them again is the literal definition of appeasement.
|
On December 20 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On December 20 2016 04:18 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 04:03 Doodsmack wrote:Lifting the sanctions from Russia right now, which is what Trump and Tillerson want to do, amounts to backing down from Russia. I don't know why they're so eager to send a signal of cowardice. There's a nice little correlation though involving the sanctions and their financial interests . Look at it this way: 1. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea. That's a done deal and pretty much everyone who knows about the issue knows that that is simply a reality of the situation. 2. The ability to solve the civil war through military means has come and gone. The Ukrainian army got destroyed, they now have nothing short of a revolt brewing back in Kiev, and the breakaway regions now have the equivalent of a standing army. Good military personnel are disproportionately pro-Russian in Ukraine. 3. Europe is faltering in its desire for more sanctions - if not the centrist coalition (which is faltering too), then absolutely, definitely the more populist trend. 4. US has very minor economic ties with Russia and if Europe says no more sanctions, then sanctions have no more reason to exist. 5. The desire to push the US's anti-Russia policy simply isn't there in most of Europe, even in nations that are not particularly inclined to be fond of Russia. It hurts their economy hard. 6. I've heard rumors that people think that Minsk II isn't going to work because it's a Catch 22 agreement, and the reality is that Ukraine has to negotiate with Russia directly, not through Minsk, if it wants any results. Which will almost necessarily mean falling back into Russia's orbit. 7. Related but not strictly tied to will for sanctions, people don't seem to be really looking for a black hole the magnitude of Greece but the size of Italy to add to the EU liability list. Sanctions didn't really work. It's probably time to come to terms with that in the most face-saving way possible. My impression is the sanctions are meant to exert pressure on Russia, which we should do in any non-military way we can, which does not leave a whole lot of options. And it's not just Ukraine now, it's the election hacking, the bombing of aid convoys in Syria, etc. So sure, the sanctions have not resulted in Russia backing down, but by lifting sanctions we would still just be sending a signal of backing down in the face of offenses. Unless Russia is willing to make some major concessions elsewhere, but Trump's signals seem to be more of "let bygones be bygones". So Russia's offenses are permissible I guess. On the other hand with China, everything is on the negotiating table including the One China policy. Europe will crack well before Russia does, even if you do take a "Russia is hurting from sanctions" approach to this (the effect is honestly quite mixed; many industries benefit a lot from sanctions). Europeans simply don't want to play the sanctions game anymore and I'm really not sure if they are going to extend them again in 2017. Merkel and Hollande and Cameron went along with it for the longest time, but... yeah. It might just break down very soon. End of 2017 is when I expect sanctions to ultimately fail. The strain gets more and more noticeable each passing 6-month extension. The current sanction extension is visibly fractured, and it's clear that some big leaders are looking for a face-saving exit from them.
I don't think you understand the premise of the sanctions, or of our deteriorating relations with Russia.
Which would put you on par with our President-elect, sadly.
The sanctions aren't an answer, they're a response. And a very justified one. It isn't Obama's fault that we don't get along with Russia. It isn't America's fault. It isn't NATO's fault. It is Putin's fault. Frankly, reading your posts is like having a resident RT.com commentator in the thread.
Sanctions are a slap on the wrist. More should be done, but can't be done. But what we can do, we should.
What we should not do is condone Russia's actions in Ukraine, or condone anything that Russia has done in the past 10 years, really. They have become crypto-fascist. Putin's political opponents get shot in the street, and all the country can do is shrug its shoulders in benign defeat.
I don't want to be friends with a country like that. And I don't want people in my country doing business with them. I want to see Russia isolated, culturally and financially, from the Western world until they show some desire to raise their standards.
|
On December 20 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2016 04:51 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On December 20 2016 04:18 LegalLord wrote:On December 20 2016 04:03 Doodsmack wrote:Lifting the sanctions from Russia right now, which is what Trump and Tillerson want to do, amounts to backing down from Russia. I don't know why they're so eager to send a signal of cowardice. There's a nice little correlation though involving the sanctions and their financial interests . Look at it this way: 1. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea. That's a done deal and pretty much everyone who knows about the issue knows that that is simply a reality of the situation. 2. The ability to solve the civil war through military means has come and gone. The Ukrainian army got destroyed, they now have nothing short of a revolt brewing back in Kiev, and the breakaway regions now have the equivalent of a standing army. Good military personnel are disproportionately pro-Russian in Ukraine. 3. Europe is faltering in its desire for more sanctions - if not the centrist coalition (which is faltering too), then absolutely, definitely the more populist trend. 4. US has very minor economic ties with Russia and if Europe says no more sanctions, then sanctions have no more reason to exist. 5. The desire to push the US's anti-Russia policy simply isn't there in most of Europe, even in nations that are not particularly inclined to be fond of Russia. It hurts their economy hard. 6. I've heard rumors that people think that Minsk II isn't going to work because it's a Catch 22 agreement, and the reality is that Ukraine has to negotiate with Russia directly, not through Minsk, if it wants any results. Which will almost necessarily mean falling back into Russia's orbit. 7. Related but not strictly tied to will for sanctions, people don't seem to be really looking for a black hole the magnitude of Greece but the size of Italy to add to the EU liability list. Sanctions didn't really work. It's probably time to come to terms with that in the most face-saving way possible. My impression is the sanctions are meant to exert pressure on Russia, which we should do in any non-military way we can, which does not leave a whole lot of options. And it's not just Ukraine now, it's the election hacking, the bombing of aid convoys in Syria, etc. So sure, the sanctions have not resulted in Russia backing down, but by lifting sanctions we would still just be sending a signal of backing down in the face of offenses. Unless Russia is willing to make some major concessions elsewhere, but Trump's signals seem to be more of "let bygones be bygones". So Russia's offenses are permissible I guess. On the other hand with China, everything is on the negotiating table including the One China policy. Europe will crack well before Russia does, even if you do take a "Russia is hurting from sanctions" approach to this (the effect is honestly quite mixed; many industries benefit a lot from sanctions). Europeans simply don't want to play the sanctions game anymore and I'm really not sure if they are going to extend them again in 2017. Merkel and Hollande and Cameron went along with it for the longest time, but... yeah. It might just break down very soon. End of 2017 is when I expect sanctions to ultimately fail. The strain gets more and more noticeable each passing 6-month extension. The current sanction extension is visibly fractured, and it's clear that some big leaders are looking for a face-saving exit from them. I don't think you understand the premise of the sanctions, or of our deteriorating relations with Russia. Which would put you on par with our President-elect, sadly. The sanctions aren't an answer, they're a response. And a very justified one. It isn't Obama's fault that we don't get along with Russia. It isn't America's fault. It isn't NATO's fault. It is Putin's fault. Frankly, reading your posts is like having a resident RT.com commentator in the thread. Sanctions are a slap on the wrist. More should be done, but can't be done. But what we can do, we should. What we should not do is condone Russia's actions in Ukraine, or condone anything that Russia has done in the past 10 years, really. They have become crypto-fascist. Putin's political opponents get shot in the street, and all the country can do is shrug its shoulders in benign defeat. I don't want to be friends with a country like that. And I don't want people in my country doing business with them. I want to see Russia isolated, culturally and financially, from the Western world until they show some desire to raise their standards.
If Sanctions do nothing then what reason does Russia have to care about the EU or the US's requests?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Who sanctions hurt and help depends on the industry. Given that two out of the past three posts have been absurd strawmen, I'm not really in the mood to talk in depth about that. The bottom line, though, is this: Russia does want sanctions lifted, but it's not exactly desperate to have them lifted either. Many important economies thrive under the current conditions.
|
Bill seeks to put porn block on computers sold in SC
An Upstate legislator is hoping to prevent anyone who buys a computer in South Carolina from accessing pornography.
State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.
The bill would fine manufacturers or sellers that sell a device without a digital blocking system installed. But any manufacturer or seller that didn't want to install the system could pay a $20 opt-out fee for each device sold.
Any buyers who want the filter lifted after purchasing a computer or device would have to pay a $20 fee, after verifying they are 18 or older.
“If an end user buys an apparatus, a computer, and they want access to that, they would have to pay to have that filter removed,” Chumley said.
The money collected from the fines and fees would go to the S.C. Attorney General’s Office's human trafficking task force, which works with law enforcement leaders, nonprofits and state advocates to find solutions to trafficking.
The bill also would prohibit access to any online hub that facilities prostitution and would require manufacturers or sellers to block any websites that facilitate trafficking, Chumley said.
“The human trafficking thing has exploded. It’s gotten to be a real problem,” Chumley said.
State officials have categorized the Upstate as a hotbed for human trafficking due to its location on Interstate 85 between Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., two cities that consistently rank among the top 20 for human sex trafficking in the U.S.
According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, South Carolina has had 1,330 calls to the hotline and reported 308 actual human trafficking cases since 2007.
Upstate law enforcement officials say the actual numbers are likely much higher, since many cases go unreported and victims are often reluctant to come forward.
Chumley said the effort, co-sponsored by state Rep. Mike Burns, R-Greenville, would combat crimes against children and protect children from exposure to sexually explicit materials.
“If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
In the pre-filed bill, the filter must have a system in place to allow consumers to report any obscene content that hasn't been caught by the filter.
Chumley referred to the bill as a “beginning point” and said once the legislation is debated in session, changes could be made.
“It’s where almost everybody has access to a computer now. It’s porn on demand,” Chumley said. “We have to start somewhere. … We’re bringing attention to it. We’re not being political. It’s an issue I’m pretty passionate about.”
http://www.goupstate.com/news/20161217/bill-seeks-to-put-porn-block-on-computers-sold-in-sc
|
Sanctions are at their best when they put pressure on the interests of the ruling elite and at their worst when they harm people in the country with no power to enact political change while the elite get off relatively scot-free (see: the 90s Iraq sanctions).
Unfortunately, in an increasingly globalized economic power structure, it's pretty damn hard to make sanctions that accomplish the former interest all that well (let alone against superpowers).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
"Harm the interests of the ruling elite" generally goes both ways. That's one of the many problems here.
In any case, at this point what is clearly true is that the will for sanctions is faltering, and they probably will last about another year before they ultimately come apart. Most of the Western leaders are just looking for a face-saving way to drop them right about now, and for the past year or so. They have their own shit to deal with and they really don't want yet another conflict to drag themselves into.
|
On December 20 2016 06:04 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +
Bill seeks to put porn block on computers sold in SC
An Upstate legislator is hoping to prevent anyone who buys a computer in South Carolina from accessing pornography.
State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.
The bill would fine manufacturers or sellers that sell a device without a digital blocking system installed. But any manufacturer or seller that didn't want to install the system could pay a $20 opt-out fee for each device sold.
Any buyers who want the filter lifted after purchasing a computer or device would have to pay a $20 fee, after verifying they are 18 or older.
“If an end user buys an apparatus, a computer, and they want access to that, they would have to pay to have that filter removed,” Chumley said.
The money collected from the fines and fees would go to the S.C. Attorney General’s Office's human trafficking task force, which works with law enforcement leaders, nonprofits and state advocates to find solutions to trafficking.
The bill also would prohibit access to any online hub that facilities prostitution and would require manufacturers or sellers to block any websites that facilitate trafficking, Chumley said.
“The human trafficking thing has exploded. It’s gotten to be a real problem,” Chumley said.
State officials have categorized the Upstate as a hotbed for human trafficking due to its location on Interstate 85 between Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., two cities that consistently rank among the top 20 for human sex trafficking in the U.S.
According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, South Carolina has had 1,330 calls to the hotline and reported 308 actual human trafficking cases since 2007.
Upstate law enforcement officials say the actual numbers are likely much higher, since many cases go unreported and victims are often reluctant to come forward.
Chumley said the effort, co-sponsored by state Rep. Mike Burns, R-Greenville, would combat crimes against children and protect children from exposure to sexually explicit materials.
“If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
In the pre-filed bill, the filter must have a system in place to allow consumers to report any obscene content that hasn't been caught by the filter.
Chumley referred to the bill as a “beginning point” and said once the legislation is debated in session, changes could be made.
“It’s where almost everybody has access to a computer now. It’s porn on demand,” Chumley said. “We have to start somewhere. … We’re bringing attention to it. We’re not being political. It’s an issue I’m pretty passionate about.”
http://www.goupstate.com/news/20161217/bill-seeks-to-put-porn-block-on-computers-sold-in-sc
well I see the Republicans are going back to dictating what people can do in the privacy of their own homes. I'm not sure how the heck this would work. Cause that costs money to do so would computers in the state go up in price or would the government eat the cost? also what about online orders. You think amazon is going to sell seperate computers to south Carolina. and can't people living near borders just drive to another state and buy a computer?
edit
so money goes to fight human trafficing thats okay I guess.
so what happens with the filterless computers? do you need to be 18 to buy them? cause that seems to be ridiculous. Personally I'd rather they just throw the 20 dollars on every computer and forget about the whole filter nonsense
|
That bill sounds like a not well thought out waste of effort and time.
probably made by someone with a poor understanding of the internet.
|
In a remarkable break from precedent, Donald Trump plans to bring members of his longtime private security team with him to the White House, according to a Politico report out Monday.
Most presidential candidates drop any outside security after they’re granted Secret Service protection, as Trump was in November 2015. However, Trump spent over $1 million on private security contractors over the last 13 months, according to Politico.
The private security team has stood watch at every stop of the President-elect’s “thank you tour” through the cities that earned him the White House. That team is headed by Keith Schiller, a retired New York City cop who was hired as Trump’s personal bodyguard in 1999 and promoted to head of security for the Trump Organization in 2004.
Schiller and his men were fixtures at Trump's campaign events, where they were tasked with waiting in the wings as Trump addressed supporters before forcibly removing protesters. Three lawsuits have been filed against Trump, his campaign or the private security detail by protesters who allege racial profiling or undue force by the individuals who removed them from the venues.
Several Trump associates told Politico that the President-elect plans to make Schiller a personal White House aide who would act as a “full-time physical gatekeeper.”
Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks declined to answer the site's questions about who is paying the private security officials, their relationship with the Secret Service and what role they are expected to play after Trump's inauguration.
Source
|
In regards to the effectiveness of sanctions against Russia, It's hard for me to tell how well they're working. Russia's GDP has taken a big hit since 2014, but that's also when the price of oil started dropping drastically which their economy is heavily reliant on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
