Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[US Foreign Policy] A Generation of War

19091939596102

Posts

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand regular FloridaRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Putin doing a bit of voter fraud is undemocractic. Republicans literally rigging the system from the ground up so they gain majorities in legislatures despite minority support is totally democratic.


    Though I suppose that an argument could be made that due to Republicans not caring about the US, real patriots should work with foreign governments to overthrow them.

    No. Its totally undemocratic. But we aren't quite at the point where there is a President for life. Obama did indeed win in 2008 and was President until 3 years ago. Putin has been in power in Russia since 2000.

    NSDFRand wrote: »
    If internal dissent can be used by the state to "support the current apparatus of state", then political opposition committing espionage can most certainly do much more damage than simple political opposition. I'm not even sure how this is a reasonable position.

    If internal dissent cannot bring down the state but external actions can then its not an unreasonable position no...

    Similarly the reason that internal dissent can be used to support the apparatus of state is that it can be constructed to give a veneer of legitimacy. "See we allow dissent" you say as you don't actually allow that dissent to do anything. Espionage does not offer legitimacy in that way. Or any way. A government is not more legitimate because its opposed or supported by outside actors. But it is more legitimate if it allows internal dissent and that dissent is not enough to sway the majority to change.

    I am not sure how its hard to see its a reasonable position.

    .
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    I do not find it a reasonable argument that simple political opposition does more damage than political opposition working with external actors to conduct espionage because we can see the effect of the mere accusation of participating in espionage against political, and even non political actors, in other states. E.g. Iran and any politically inconvenient individual or organization outside of the approved factions in the state and deep state.

    Alexei Nevalny, for example, being caught spying for the US would do outsize damage to any political opposition that even his being imprisoned for clearly made up charges of financial impropriety didn't. And it would do far more to "legetimize" Putin than the mere existence of opposition.

    The 2nd Amendment is unarguably one of the most liberal, liberating and radical statements ever made in human history.
    ElkiCaedwyr
  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    Honk wrote: »
    Putin was prime minister literally because it was a necessary step while changing the law so that he could have more terms as president.

    The Constitution of the Russian Federation then, and now, just prohibits presidents serving more than two consecutive terms. Putin already always could do the thing you say he had to change the law for.

    The amendments to the constitution of 2008 increased the length of terms for the President and the State Duma from 4 to 6 years. They did not change the rule that presidents can't serve for more than two consecutive terms.

  • LanzLanz regular Registered User regular
    I'm not entirely sure why we're focusing on the constitutional aspect instead of the things like

    you know

    murdering dissidents


    or the consolidation of organized crime and oligarchy in such a way that they are tied to Putin

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    BlackDragon480tynicFencingsaxHarry Dresdenautono-wally, erotibot300electricitylikesmeDesktop HippiejdarksunButtersQanamilZibblsnrtTynnanNobeardMagelljmcdonaldForardispatch.oHavelock2.0Gennenalyse RuebenHacksawMrVyngaardNiryaHappy Little MachineYoutubeDongs Galore
  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

  • GaddezGaddez regular Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    Russian elections are only legitimate if you think it's ok to ban public assembly of opposition, have no access to viable media platforms to campaign from and require putin's consent to form a party.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    ButtersZibblsnrtIncenjucarHavelock2.0Gennenalyse RuebenMrVyngaardNiryaYoutubeDongs Galore
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    And Boris Nemtsov?

    Youtube
  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    Russian elections are only legitimate if you think it's ok to ban public assembly of opposition, have no access to viable media platforms to campaign from and require putin's consent to form a party.

    I never said they were legitimate, whatever you mean by that. I don't think the Russian democracy is fine or acceptable. The current Russian government is repressive and authoritarian as shit.


    But if people here are just going to blindly repeat whatever dumb propaganda they heard, I am going to disagree with the false shit.

  • LanzLanz regular Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    Russian elections are only legitimate if you think it's ok to ban public assembly of opposition, have no access to viable media platforms to campaign from and require putin's consent to form a party.

    I never said they were legitimate, whatever you mean by that. I don't think the Russian democracy is fine or acceptable. The current Russian government is repressive and authoritarian as shit.


    But if people here are just going to blindly repeat whatever dumb propaganda they heard, I am going to disagree with the false shit.

    I think the issue is like, we're not sure what difference between a sham election and an illegitimate election are in your view?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Butters
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    Russian elections are only legitimate if you think it's ok to ban public assembly of opposition, have no access to viable media platforms to campaign from and require putin's consent to form a party.

    I never said they were legitimate, whatever you mean by that.

    ...so they're sham elections?

    Mild ConfusionSolarButtersshrykeTynnanNobeardjmcdonaldIncenjucarHavelock2.0Gennenalyse RuebenEinzelHacksawMr FuzzbuttSanguinius666264MrVyngaardNiryaHappy Little MachineOghulkemp123
  • GaddezGaddez regular Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    Russian elections are only legitimate if you think it's ok to ban public assembly of opposition, have no access to viable media platforms to campaign from and require putin's consent to form a party.

    I never said they were legitimate, whatever you mean by that. I don't think the Russian democracy is fine or acceptable. The current Russian government is repressive and authoritarian as shit.


    But if people here are just going to blindly repeat whatever dumb propaganda they heard, I am going to disagree with the false shit.

    Your splitting the thinnest of hairs.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    durandal4532Harry DresdenMorganVProhassMild ConfusionGnome-InterruptusButtersZibblsnrtTynnanNobeardjmcdonaldMarathonForarHavelock2.0Gennenalyse RuebenHacksawMrVyngaardNiryaYoutubeOghulk
  • GoumindongGoumindong regular Registered User regular
    edited September 11
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Putin doing a bit of voter fraud is undemocractic. Republicans literally rigging the system from the ground up so they gain majorities in legislatures despite minority support is totally democratic.


    Though I suppose that an argument could be made that due to Republicans not caring about the US, real patriots should work with foreign governments to overthrow them.

    No. Its totally undemocratic. But we aren't quite at the point where there is a President for life. Obama did indeed win in 2008 and was President until 3 years ago. Putin has been in power in Russia since 2000.

    NSDFRand wrote: »
    If internal dissent can be used by the state to "support the current apparatus of state", then political opposition committing espionage can most certainly do much more damage than simple political opposition. I'm not even sure how this is a reasonable position.

    If internal dissent cannot bring down the state but external actions can then its not an unreasonable position no...

    Similarly the reason that internal dissent can be used to support the apparatus of state is that it can be constructed to give a veneer of legitimacy. "See we allow dissent" you say as you don't actually allow that dissent to do anything. Espionage does not offer legitimacy in that way. Or any way. A government is not more legitimate because its opposed or supported by outside actors. But it is more legitimate if it allows internal dissent and that dissent is not enough to sway the majority to change.

    I am not sure how its hard to see its a reasonable position.

    .
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    I do not find it a reasonable argument that simple political opposition does more damage than political opposition working with external actors to conduct espionage because we can see the effect of the mere accusation of participating in espionage against political, and even non political actors, in other states. E.g. Iran and any politically inconvenient individual or organization outside of the approved factions in the state and deep state.

    Alexei Nevalny, for example, being caught spying for the US would do outsize damage to any political opposition that even his being imprisoned for clearly made up charges of financial impropriety didn't. And it would do far more to "legetimize" Putin than the mere existence of opposition.

    Yes an opposition leader caught spying would do damage to the opposition. And would legitimize Putin. But not because spying legitimizes the regime, because spying de-legitimizes the opposition. And an illegitimate opposition legitimizes the regime.

    A random person spying does not do damage to the opposition. I don't like the democrats less because Stein looks an awful lot like an operative.

    But political opposition does seem to legitimize the regime. Here you and Julius are, in this very thread, saying that Russia is a democracy with free ("enough") elections and that Putin isn't a dictator because Alexi Nevalny exists, even though he has been jailed for legitimate political action.

    edit: Juilius you have said that Russia holds legitimate elections that Putin legitimately won like... 8 different times and in 12 different ways. You said they weren't shams you said they were "free enough". You said "putin would have won even without the light fraud"*...

    *not a direct quote but not an inaccurate representation.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
    electricitylikesmeGnome-InterruptusMrVyngaard
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    The guy was offered the chance to get out of Russia, to get to safety. He turned it down, opting to continue his work. His work became crucial to the case that Russia meddled in our election, a story that is going to be remembered and outlast much of the other bullshit from these times. The guy has courage on a level I can't imagine and is a genuine patriot of the highest order. It's people like him that keep the world safe, working in the shadows, unremembered by history. For his service he has been rewarded with President Trump.

    I'm so exhausted. Too exhausted to be properly angry right now.

    My guess is, ICE will be departing him soon.

    steam_sig.png
    Gnizmo
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    He's white, though.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Youtube
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    The history of the world has so examples of effective domestic opposition to despotic regimes that the view that anyone who isn’t spying for some agency is actually not in the opposition is quite an insulting leap.

    But besides that, espionage of this sort is not really even a form of opposition, and more of a dice roll. Yes, you’re giving a foreign power information, but what they do with it is up to them. They can pursue regime change, if that’s what benefits them, or they could do nothing of the sort and seek better relations which is the far more common course of action as everyone is spying on everyone all the time. The US and Russia spy on each other for advantages to the US and Russia, and how they would interpret has nothing to do with the well-being of citizens in Russia and the US (something that would be a primary concern for any opposition worth a damn).

    That spy would be familiar with that, because it was only a presidency ago that Obama made it a goal to improve relationships with Russia. And for all the bad blood in 2000-2008, the US could hardly be accused of pursuing regime change in Russia with any seriousness. And right now we have a president that’s being barely restrained from declaring undying love and friendship. The idea of espionage as the only or even an effective form of opposition is unpersuasive.

    Say what you will about domestic opposition, but the one thing it does consistently is actually oppose the government.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    monikertynicshrykeElldrenMrVyngaardFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloudemp123
  • TarantioTarantio regular Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    Russian elections are only legitimate if you think it's ok to ban public assembly of opposition, have no access to viable media platforms to campaign from and require putin's consent to form a party.

    I never said they were legitimate, whatever you mean by that. I don't think the Russian democracy is fine or acceptable. The current Russian government is repressive and authoritarian as shit.


    But if people here are just going to blindly repeat whatever dumb propaganda they heard, I am going to disagree with the false shit.

    Nothing you've disagreed with is false.

    What appreciable difference is there between "sham elections" and "illegitimate elections?"

    ButtersBlackDragon480ZibblsnrtjmcdonaldMrVyngaard
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt regular Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    So elections in which polling stations often count two or three ballots for every actual voter, in campaigns where the head of state picks and chooses who's allowed to run and jails (or simply kills) those who he sufficiently disapproves of, and whose media coverage is filtered exclusively through the head of state's personal communications apparatus, and whose results are certified by an organization whose members are largely picked by the president, aren't sham elections?

    What's it actually take before it counts as one? Does he have to crown himself tsar?

    GaddezGnome-Interruptuselectricitylikesme
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    The history of the world has so examples of effective domestic opposition to despotic regimes that the view that anyone who isn’t spying for some agency is actually not in the opposition is quite an insulting leap.

    But besides that, espionage of this sort is not really even a form of opposition, and more of a dice roll. Yes, you’re giving a foreign power information, but what they do with it is up to them. They can pursue regime change, if that’s what benefits them, or they could do nothing of the sort and seek better relations which is the far more common course of action as everyone is spying on everyone all the time. The US and Russia spy on each other for advantages to the US and Russia, and how they would interpret has nothing to do with the well-being of citizens in Russia and the US (something that would be a primary concern for any opposition worth a damn).

    That spy would be familiar with that, because it was only a presidency ago that Obama made it a goal to improve relationships with Russia. And for all the bad blood in 2000-2008, the US could hardly be accused of pursuing regime change in Russia with any seriousness. And right now we have a president that’s being barely restrained from declaring undying love and friendship. The idea of espionage as the only or even an effective form of opposition is unpersuasive.

    Say what you will about domestic opposition, but the one thing it does consistently is actually oppose the government.

    Yeah, I don't think anyone should be under the illusion that US spies in Russia are doing anything but helping the US deal with Russian foreign policy actions. There's probably almost no one silly enough in the US foreign policy sphere to be seriously thinking of some kind of regime change push.

    Commander ZoomBlackDragon480ZibblsnrtNobeardjmcdonaldGnome-InterruptustynicElldrenMrVyngaardHappy Little Machine
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Some quotes from the NYT story that I found interesting, and a Yahoo story that follows up on some of the same themes.
    NYT wrote:
    C.I.A. officials worried about safety made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source from Russia. The situation grew more tense when the informant at first refused, citing family concerns — prompting consternation at C.I.A. headquarters and sowing doubts among some American counterintelligence officials about the informant’s trustworthiness. But the C.I.A. pressed again months later after more media inquiries. This time, the informant agreed.

    ...

    Leaving behind one’s native country is a weighty decision, said Joseph Augustyn, a former senior C.I.A. officer who once ran the agency’s defector resettlement center. Often, informants have kept their spy work secret from their families.

    It’s a very difficult decision to make, but it is their decision to make,” Mr. Augustyn said. “There have been times when people have not come out when we strongly suggested that they should.”
    Yahoo wrote:
    In most cases, Augustyn told Yahoo News, the CIA strongly recommends that the source and his or her family change their names and begin new lives in the United States. However, the agency, which provides resources such as legal assistance, language education, job training and other services, has to balance the source’s need for protection with the desire to live a full life and maintain some level of freedom for his or her family. And once the source becomes an American citizen, the CIA has little authority over his or her life.

    “I cannot imagine that the agency did not try to dissuade him [from] keeping his true identity,” said Augustyn. ”But when it comes down to it, it’s his decision.”

    While he was not aware of the specifics, Augustyn speculated that the spy’s children and their difficulties in adjusting to a new country may have entered into the family’s decision.

    https://news.yahoo.com/exposure-of-russian-spy-sparks-concern-over-protecting-assets-in-the-digital-age-182733530.html

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • GONG-00GONG-00 regular Registered User regular
    I hope this outed asset somehow evades Putin's wrath.

    Future Employee of Planetary Acquisitions, Inc.
    Pax Arcadia(PC) Division Agent
    xu257gunns6e.png

    LovelyGnome-InterruptusMrVyngaardJaysonFour
  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    Russian elections are only legitimate if you think it's ok to ban public assembly of opposition, have no access to viable media platforms to campaign from and require putin's consent to form a party.

    I never said they were legitimate, whatever you mean by that. I don't think the Russian democracy is fine or acceptable. The current Russian government is repressive and authoritarian as shit.


    But if people here are just going to blindly repeat whatever dumb propaganda they heard, I am going to disagree with the false shit.

    I think the issue is like, we're not sure what difference between a sham election and an illegitimate election are in your view?

    A sham election is an election held purely for show that is not in any way tied to what the people think. An illegitimate election is a real election in which the results do not accurately or fairly reflect the will of the people. e.g. forcing people to vote or just making up the whole result vs. weighing some votes more than others or preventing people from voting. I think that's an important difference.

    like, obviously US elections are (for the most part) illegitimate, but I don't think they're just sham elections.

  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    edit: Juilius you have said that Russia holds legitimate elections that Putin legitimately won like... 8 different times and in 12 different ways. You said they weren't shams you said they were "free enough". You said "putin would have won even without the light fraud"*...

    *not a direct quote but not an inaccurate representation.

    Putin would have won without the fraud. It is very hard for him not to. The ballot stuffing gave him a 75% win, rather than like 60 or 55% or whatever. The #2 got like 11%. The thing about Russia is that the party led by Putin is so dominant they can afford to hold relatively free elections because they will win them anyway.

    Like, elections are actually monitored by international organizations, guys. The OSCE concluded that the political environment is repressive and unfair, but the actual election was conducted openly and reasonably fair. Other organizations basically concurred.


    None of that means the elections were truly legitimate. But given that such a thing is super rare in the first place, I think it's important to note the degree to which elections are free and fair. We can't just go "Putin stuffed ballots so he is a dictator" and call it a day.

  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    Tarantio wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    For the record, Putin does have popular support. While there was obvious voter fraud during the 2018 elections, Russian democracy is free enough that it didn't do more than make the win seem more overwhelming than it really was.

    A lot of Russians like Putin and what he has to say. And this should not in any way be a surprise to anyone, least of all Americans.

    The United States, while struggling, is generally still considered a democracy. The Russian Federation is not.

    Well sure all the western democracy indices don't consider it one because of all the repression, but it still functions as one and holds elections that are decently led and in which the outcome mostly resembles opinion. They don't hold sham elections or plain don't have them like some countries.

    Which is besides the point because the issue was popular support. Putin is popular, even while election results paint him as more popular than he is. Any foreign policy or analysis working on the assumption that he isn't is going to fail.

    How many of his electoral opponents wind up in the dock or in the morgue again? An election that isn't allowed to have an actual opposition is a sham election.

    Putin ran against like 7 people in 2018 who are all alive and free afaik. Navalny is probably in jail at the moment, but for the most part opposition it allowed.

    Sham elections are usually actual shams, not just incredibly heavily stacked in favour of one side. Putin and United Russia don't hold sham elections because they don't really need to.

    Russian elections are only legitimate if you think it's ok to ban public assembly of opposition, have no access to viable media platforms to campaign from and require putin's consent to form a party.

    I never said they were legitimate, whatever you mean by that. I don't think the Russian democracy is fine or acceptable. The current Russian government is repressive and authoritarian as shit.


    But if people here are just going to blindly repeat whatever dumb propaganda they heard, I am going to disagree with the false shit.

    Nothing you've disagreed with is false.

    I mean Honk said a blatantly false thing on the previous page and it got like 40 agrees.

  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I might have confused what the relevant law change was about at the time but double checking now, it was indeed the case that he was not permitted to run for a third term. To then step down to the second highest highest office while your friend keeps your chair warm until next time is pretty much the same thing in essence. He was never not the top man except on paper. The point was that he is a dictator.

    PSN: Honkalot
    Couscousdispatch.otyniclonelyahavaCommander ZoomFencingsaxButtersElldrenMrVyngaardHappy Little Machine
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt regular Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Like, elections are actually monitored by international organizations, guys. The OSCE concluded that the political environment is repressive and unfair, but the actual election was conducted openly and reasonably fair. Other organizations basically concurred.

    Oh my god what are you talking about.

    The OSCE didn't actually use the word "sham," but their statements make it very clear they considered the 2018 presidential election an efficiently-operated farce. The leader of the OSCE mission explicitly said there was no real choice to be had, with opposition candidates trod on to a degree that he questioned the point of the election.

    The report talks about four hundred and seventy reported complaints of election shenanigans (only two of which were actually even looked at by the state), ubiquitous media censorship and self-censorship, widespread coercion of voters, extrajudicial blocking of opposition speech online, criminalization of "insulting state officials," fully half the candidates for president being denied permission to run for election, and three-fifths of polling stations engaged in one form or another of irregularities ranging from non-secret ballots to overt stuffing of the boxes.

    Also, "fair election" and "repressive political environment" cannot coexist as concepts and I'm entirely fucking baffled that that isn't absolutely self-evident. You can have one, or you have the other, but you cannot have both.

    CouscousHevachForartynicmonikerMild ConfusionGennenalyse RuebenQanamilCommander ZoomButtersFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusSmrtnikGaddezElldrenNobeardautono-wally, erotibot300electricitylikesmeMrVyngaarda5ehrenJaysonFourNiryaHappy Little MachinePolaritieOghulkemp123
  • ViskodViskod regular Registered User regular
    Donald Trump said:

    "The Obama Nuclear Deal was a total failure that did nothing."
    "Barack Obama just "gave away" millions of dollars to Iran for nothing."

    Donald Trump also says:

    "Do what you were doing before I fucked it up, and we'll give you $15 billion."


    The Daily Beast: Trump has left the impression with foreign officials and members of his administration that he is actively considering a French plan to extend a $15 billion credit line to the Iranians if Tehran comes back into compliance with the Obama-era nuclear deal

    Artereis wrote: »
    It's not your fault, Viskod. 1 out of every 10 people just happens to be a monster.
    monikerMild ConfusionBlackDragon480DarkPrimusMorganVIncenjucarDonnictonButtersFencingsaxTNTrooperGONG-00Gnome-InterruptusCelestialBadgerTicaldfjamGaddezSmrtnikKamarElldrenArdolDark Raven XNobeardDesktop HippieEinzelStabbity StyleJaysonFourKoopahTroopahNiryaYoutubePolaritieOghulkAimToxFoolOnTheHillMagellNo-QuarterthatassemblyguyBurnageCalicaZonugalemp123
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    edited September 11
    Heh, apt update to the thread title.

    Some perspective on this 18th anniversary of 9/11

    So, I retired from the military last month after 20 years of service. Throughout it, new Soldiers would always join and at some point it always came up where they were on 9/11. It started off with some still being in school or already adults. Eventually young Soldiers barely remember it actually happening and only recall it as history they were taught. But that’s just how time works, so I always knew one day this would happen.

    But it was still rather somber this year as I was clearing I got to meet all the youngest Soldiers that just graduated basic training were mostly born in the year 2001. Kids graduating high school this school year and joining the military will have been born after 9/11.

    They’re still fighting this war and weren’t even alive when it started.

    Mild Confusion on
    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    RchanenZibblsnrtPreacherCantidoForarAistanmonikerBlackDragon480lonelyahavaCommander ZoomOneAngryPossumKayne Red RobeButtersFencingsaxTNTrooperJazzHacksawCelestialBadgerTicaldfjamDiplominatorVishNubSmrtnikDuke 2.0ElldrenSleepEmerlmaster999ErlecArdolSanguinius666264Chomp-ChompNobeardDesktop Hippieknitdanautono-wally, erotibot300MrVyngaardStabbity StyleJaysonFourjdarksunGONG-00KoopahTroopahNiryaHappy Little MachineDoctorArchToxWhittledownMagellNo-QuarterthatassemblyguyBurnageCalicaZonugalemp123
  • jothkijothki regular Registered User regular
    So the administration's antagonism towards Iran was pretty much entirely Bolton?

    Jragghen
  • chrisnlchrisnl regular Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    So the administration's antagonism towards Iran was pretty much entirely Bolton?

    This is quite plausible. That man hates Iran with a burning passion.

    steam_sig.png
    FencingsaxElldren
  • HevachHevach regular Registered User regular
    edited September 11
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Like, elections are actually monitored by international organizations, guys. The OSCE concluded that the political environment is repressive and unfair, but the actual election was conducted openly and reasonably fair. Other organizations basically concurred.

    Oh my god what are you talking about.

    The OSCE didn't actually use the word "sham," but their statements make it very clear they considered the 2018 presidential election an efficiently-operated farce. The leader of the OSCE mission explicitly said there was no real choice to be had, with opposition candidates trod on to a degree that he questioned the point of the election.

    The report talks about four hundred and seventy reported complaints of election shenanigans (only two of which were actually even looked at by the state), ubiquitous media censorship and self-censorship, widespread coercion of voters, extrajudicial blocking of opposition speech online, criminalization of "insulting state officials," fully half the candidates for president being denied permission to run for election, and three-fifths of polling stations engaged in one form or another of irregularities ranging from non-secret ballots to overt stuffing of the boxes.

    Also, "fair election" and "repressive political environment" cannot coexist as concepts and I'm entirely fucking baffled that that isn't absolutely self-evident. You can have one, or you have the other, but you cannot have both.

    https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/375661

    The report did not say open and fair, it said open and efficient.

    Open means the OSCE was allowed to operate and observe relatively unimpeded, nothing else. Its their way of saying that if shenanigans were happening, they weren't being actively obstructed from being able to see it... And ho-lee-she-it did they see it, as the entire rest of the report covers.

    Hevach on
    CouscousZibblsnrtmonikerBlackDragon480RchanenKayne Red RobeMorganVFencingsaxButtersSmrtnikElldrenNirya
  • AstaerethAstaereth regular In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    So the administration's antagonism towards Iran was pretty much entirely Bolton?

    This is quite plausible. That man hates Iran with a burning passion.

    It’s more likely that Trump is just looking for things he can tout as accomplishments for his re-elect.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    Gennenalyse RuebenBigJoeMFencingsaxDevoutlyApatheticTicaldfjamEmerlmaster999NobeardMrVyngaardJaysonFourYoutubeCantido
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    chrisnl wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    So the administration's antagonism towards Iran was pretty much entirely Bolton?

    This is quite plausible. That man hates Iran with a burning passion.

    It’s more likely that Trump is just looking for things he can tout as accomplishments for his re-elect.

    “See how awesome I am for fixing this thing I broke!”

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    monikerDoctor DetroitCommander ZoomMorganVFencingsaxJazzGONG-00TicaldfjamElldrenEmerlmaster999NobeardMrVyngaardJaysonFourNiryaToxMagellNo-QuarterCalicaemp123
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    So the administration's antagonism towards Iran was pretty much entirely Bolton?

    Nah. They started this shit with Iran before Bolton signed on. It was entirely "Obama did it, so it's bad"

    ZibblsnrttynicmonikerMild ConfusionGennenalyse RuebenjmcdonaldBlackDragon480AegisRchanenBigJoeMOneAngryPossumDark_SideFencingsaxJazzButtersGONG-00Gnome-InterruptusTicaldfjamGaddezSmrtnikHacksawXaquinElldrenArdolNobeardelectricitylikesmeStabbity StyleJaysonFourKoopahTroopahNiryaHappy Little MachineYoutubeToxBandableMagellNo-Quarteremp123
  • monikermoniker regular Registered User regular
    edited September 12
    Heh, apt update to the thread title.

    Some perspective on this 18th anniversary of 9/11

    So, I retired from the military last month after 20 years of service. Throughout it, new Soldiers would always join and at some point it always came up where they were on 9/11. It started off with some still being in school or already adults. Eventually young Soldiers barely remember it actually happening and only recall it as history they were taught. But that’s just how time works, so I always knew one day this would happen.

    But it was still rather somber this year as I was clearing I got to meet all the youngest Soldiers that just graduated basic training were mostly born in the year 2001. Kids graduating high school this school year and joining the military will have been born after 9/11.

    They’re still fighting this war and weren’t even alive when it started.

    Which is why I changed it. We have literally been at war for a generation. And not in the 'technically Korea is an Armistice' way. I would not have conceived of this as possible let alone tenable when I joined in protests against declaring war on Iraq just a few years later. And I still don't see how it ends. My youngest second (?) cousins don't really know any other world. In the same way that I don't really know a world with the Soviet Union, but my oldest cousins do. It's an odd sensation.

    moniker on
    Mild ConfusionAthenorBlackDragon480lonelyahavaOneAngryPossumKayne Red RobeFencingsaxArdolJaysonFourOrcaNo-QuarterCalica
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt regular Registered User regular
    One of the few things Trump was consistent about on the campaign trail was tearing up any kind of diplomatic agreements with Iran because Obama Bad.

    That said, Trump just didn't want diplomacy with them. Bolton wanted marines sightseeing in whatever was left of the presidential palace after the air force was done with the place. There was definitely a difference of degree there to say the last.

    FencingsaxElldren
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom regular Registered User regular
    edited September 12
    It is depressingly consistent that Trump would want to tear up any deal Obama made, and then make basically the same a much better deal with his name on it.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    destroyah87ZibblsnrtSmrtnikElldrenLovelyJaysonFour
  • MorganVMorganV regular Registered User regular
    It is depressingly consistent that Trump would want to tear up any deal Obama made, and then make basically the same a much better deal with his name on it.

    Don't forget, pissing away up to $15B on doing so.

    It's so fucking stupid.

    Bet both the Republican Iran hawks and deficit hawks in Congress are up in arms over this. Bet they'll publicly voice their opinions any time now.

    Any second.

    *tumbleweed*

    PreacherFencingsaxJazzCaptainPeacockCommander ZoomGnome-InterruptusTicaldfjamSmrtnikDee KaeHacksawRchanenElldrenNobeardDesktop HippieelectricitylikesmeMrVyngaardStabbity StyleJaysonFourOrcaRetabaYoutubeKraintkimeNo-QuarterthatassemblyguyCalicaemp123
  • jothkijothki regular Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    So the administration's antagonism towards Iran was pretty much entirely Bolton?

    Nah. They started this shit with Iran before Bolton signed on. It was entirely "Obama did it, so it's bad"

    Beyond attempting to undo everything that Obama had done, I mean. Bolton actually sincerely wanted to go to war with Iran, while everyone else was just temporarily using antagonism towards Iran as a vehicle for their pettiness and had no sincere intent to actually do anything that would require effort on their part or potentially hurt their polling.

    Fencingsax
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor regular Registered User regular
    edited September 12
    MorganV wrote: »
    It is depressingly consistent that Trump would want to tear up any deal Obama made, and then make basically the same a much better deal with his name on it.

    Don't forget, pissing away up to $15B on doing so.

    It's so fucking stupid.

    Bet both the Republican Iran hawks and deficit hawks in Congress are up in arms over this. Bet they'll publicly voice their opinions any time now.

    Any second.

    *tumbleweed*

    They may yet; that's how this works. This was probably either a dagger from Bolton's people, or a trial balloon; either way Trump can still scream "fake news" to his base if serious people or maga-twitter object.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    So the administration's antagonism towards Iran was pretty much entirely Bolton?

    Nah. They started this shit with Iran before Bolton signed on. It was entirely "Obama did it, so it's bad"

    Beyond attempting to undo everything that Obama had done, I mean. Bolton actually sincerely wanted to go to war with Iran, while everyone else was just temporarily using antagonism towards Iran as a vehicle for their pettiness and had no sincere intent to actually do anything that would require effort on their part or potentially hurt their polling.

    Oh, this goes beyond Bolton or just pettiness. Many on the right in general opposed these kind of deals and were more then happy for Trump to kill it. They weren't as war-thirsty as Bolton, no, but they did like fucking with Iran something fierce.

  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 regular Registered User regular
    Flynn was also mega anti-Iran. And they somehow thought they could get Russia to turn on them and help destroy the country.

This discussion has been closed.