Nothing new under the sun. Proxy wars are an old thing, and they're still a valid strategy because they are very good for the economy, this should not surprise anyone. The Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #34 wasn't made up, like most things in Star Trek it's not so much fiction, but a distorted parody of real 20th century history and racial clichés.

In every proxy war, the larger nations support one or the other side (sometimes both), always with most honorable justifications, and keep the conflict going for years, or decades. After all, someone has to buy the weapons you manufacture, and as long as war stays in some far-away country that most people have trouble finding on the map, it's all fine. Spain, China, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan... did I forget an important one?

So... the question of questions... will this turn Russia and USA against each other, will it escalate to a huge war? Of course not. They have an interest in keeping this conflict going, but they have no interest whatsoever in a conflict between the superpowers. They're not insane, you know. This is about business, not about total extermination in a global war. Sure, they'll do their propaganda show, but... whatever.

You need to have an enemy and an immediate threat after all, or the whole thing doesn't make sense. How do you govern a country when there are no present and immediate threats, and your citizens are not afraid of someone? How do you make them comply with the idea of your war (which is good for business)? How do you make them comply with their civil rights being violated every day? How do you convince a random young man to go to a far-away country and die in a trench with his guts hanging out of his belly, if there is no enemy that needs to be destroyed? Sure enough, hate and fear are most valuable properties, and you need to feed them regularly. So yeah... propaganda will go on, of course. But that's just... The Show.

You never asked yourself how some random arab guy who can barely write his name managed to capture an airplane and crash it... not just in the world trade center, but right into the Pentagon? Seriously? Right into the most secured building in the country, flying through the probably most paranoia controlled airspace in the world with F18s in the air at all times? Come on, you never wondered how that could have happened? Enemy, babe... you need an enemy. And you need fear.

It's not even certain who repeatedly used chemical weapons in Syria or bombed a chemical weapon factory or whatever. Assad? Maybe. Some IS guy? Maybe. But it might very well have been US military or Russian military, too. What do we know about it? Nothing. Only what we're being told. You cannot even be sure that the so-called IS isn't in reality the CIA (it's not like they hadn't done similar before, think e.g. Operation Ajax).

23 Tomahawks on 59? What good aim..

23 Tomahawks on 59? What good aim..

If you believe Russian news media, sure. I don't.

Jesus, Samoth... 9/11 conspiracies? You've really gone off the deep end...

Well seeing as Bannon got demoted/fired, and now we are seeing the first major action on Syria, it's certainly changed up the field quite a bit. Thing is that it makes an already complex Syrian situation that much more complicated.

The Bannon thing is important because of the fact that a lot of the team up with Russia stuff is his line. He was always of the belief that teaming up with Russia to fight against Islam is a great idea.

But it's true that much of Trump's policies are almost completely random. There is no rhyme or reason to what he does for the most part. Just a few days ago, Trump didn't give two shits about Assad. Now suddenly that's reversed.

In any event, it seems that many Trumpians don't really like this latest move.

Who knows? Maybe it's all another grand distraction. The major significance of the action is that it's a response. It's not a significant military action by any means.

Imo this move screams Mad Dog Mattis to me, not Trump.

There's still tons of reports coming about the collusion though. It makes this that much more interesting.

What conclusion do you mean? Do you mean the ongoing investigation part of my belife that someone is going to jail?

I'm gonna guess that you mean the second part, and imo, with all the smoke and cover ups, something is bad enough that the best course of action is to do an obvious cover up. There are a ton of signs pointing to there is an illegal connection here. I admit tho that we don't really know how many were involved and how far reaching it is. Granted we don't know what the investigation is doing, but there's been plenty of leaks, so we know some details.

Btw, how'd the cows aren't evil name come about? Always curious each time I see you post. PM me if you feel it'd derail the thread. :)

On one hand I see what you mean by "obvious cover up," but I also think there's a lot of effort to contextualize these actions in a way that makes them seem as suspicious as possible. The fact that so many people are "involved" actually makes it seem a bit less plausible to me, because I can't imagine that all of these people who don't seem like they'd be particularly adept at espionage would all A) be able to keep it a relative secret with so many people looking for proof and B) not have voluntarily betrayed the truth (Flynn's request for immunity notwithstanding).

In my mind the "scandal" could turn out to be as little as some people simply forgot about their actually-innocuous interactions with Russian officials simply because they were innocuous and forgettable. Of course, it could also turn out that Trump himself knowingly made a deal with the Russian government to illegally interfere with the election. I think it's almost certain that, even in this worst case (worst for the integrity of the presidency, I mean -- I have no interest in discussing whether it's a good thing to want Trump to have committed serious crimes), the goal wasn't to falsify the vote itself, but I don't think that matters per se. if the Russian "influence campaign" operated through illegal means (e.g. hacking) and Trump oversaw it (or offered something to the Russians to knowingly encourage it), then it'd still be a worse-than-Watergate scandal, simply because it ticks all of the same boxes as Watergate (crimes were committed, the President was directly involved in the crime and cover-up, and the President used his own authority to facilitate both things) plus it involves a foreign government.

Again, I have no idea what the outcome is, but if I absolutely had to speculate, I'd say that the truth probably falls somewhere between the two scenarios above. For instance, maybe members of the administration had dealings with Russians that would be seen as "bad" if exposed (e.g. making deals with the Russion government largely for personal financial gain, or doing/saying things that would appear to encourage the Russian government to support Trump via more-legal means such as propaganda), hence the "cover-up."

Also, my name doesn't mean anything in particular, although I do like cows? I've been using the name since I was 11, I think, about a year or so before I first joined this site. I stuck with it even when the popular thing to do here was using real names, and I still like it, so I don't see any reason to change it now. I guess I like to be more-or-less anonymous, even though it's not impossible to figure out my personal info. I've mostly tried to avoid having a personal online presence in general.

At this stage, I don't give a fuck about Russia. Trump could be giving Putin your launch codes for all I care.

Meanwhile, he's busy ensuring that we won't have a planet to live on in the next 40 years.

Obviously this "Russia collusion" thing is for consumption by US liberals only, who at this point are entirely hopeless and lost. Sanders tried to save them from themselves and infuse some new blood, "New Deal" style, but they were too busy fawning over the Clintons. Many of them even liked what Trump did in Syria. He looked "presidential". And why not? What, Obama or Clinton wouldn't have done what he did? Clinton already said she would. Of course she would.

Anyway, most of the rest of the world doesn't give a crap whether the US elections were tampered by Putin, whether Slay Queen Hillary was more "qualified" than Trump(qualified to do what? Run a global hegemony that benefits USarians? Why the hell would we care about that?), whether US gets destabilized, or any of that.

Tbh, and don't take this the wrong way guys, but most of us, especially from poorer countries, just wish US would just...go away. You're not the benevolent empire you seem to think you are; "woke" liberals, "charming" Obamas, "feminist" Slay Queens, and Bernie-style "socialists" included. Time and time again, you make things 10x worse wherever and whenever you decide to "intervene". We don't want you to be "tolerant" enough to take in refugees from countries you go to war with. We kinda want you to stop bombing them in the first place.

The only thing I care about the US is the amount of CO2 and explosives it unleashes into the rest of the planet; other than that, you might as well all go sink into the Pacific pardon my french. :P

And this thing with liberals and Russia is getting *really* ridiculous, just admit you lost any connection you had with the masses and try to win them back. Do some freaking self-criticism. And don't put Lena Dunhamn in charge of your PR in the next elections.

What conclusion do you mean? Do you mean the ongoing investigation part of my belife that someone is going to jail?

I'm gonna guess that you mean the second part, and imo, with all the smoke and cover ups, something is bad enough that the best course of action is to do an obvious cover up. There are a ton of signs pointing to there is an illegal connection here. I admit tho that we don't really know how many were involved and how far reaching it is. Granted we don't know what the investigation is doing, but there's been plenty of leaks, so we know some details.

Btw, how'd the cows aren't evil name come about? Always curious each time I see you post. PM me if you feel it'd derail the thread. :)

On one hand I see what you mean by "obvious cover up," but I also think there's a lot of effort to contextualize these actions in a way that makes them seem as suspicious as possible. The fact that so many people are "involved" actually makes it seem a bit less plausible to me, because I can't imagine that all of these people who don't seem like they'd be particularly adept at espionage would all A) be able to keep it a relative secret with so many people looking for proof and B) not have voluntarily betrayed the truth (Flynn's request for immunity notwithstanding).

In my mind the "scandal" could turn out to be as little as some people simply forgot about their actually-innocuous interactions with Russian officials simply because they were innocuous and forgettable. Of course, it could also turn out that Trump himself knowingly made a deal with the Russian government to illegally interfere with the election. I think it's almost certain that, even in this worst case (worst for the integrity of the presidency, I mean -- I have no interest in discussing whether it's a good thing to want Trump to have committed serious crimes), the goal wasn't to falsify the vote itself, but I don't think that matters per se. if the Russian "influence campaign" operated through illegal means (e.g. hacking) and Trump oversaw it (or offered something to the Russians to knowingly encourage it), then it'd still be a worse-than-Watergate scandal, simply because it ticks all of the same boxes as Watergate (crimes were committed, the President was directly involved in the crime and cover-up, and the President used his own authority to facilitate both things) plus it involves a foreign government.

Again, I have no idea what the outcome is, but if I absolutely had to speculate, I'd say that the truth probably falls somewhere between the two scenarios above. For instance, maybe members of the administration had dealings with Russians that would be seen as "bad" if exposed (e.g. making deals with the Russion government largely for personal financial gain, or doing/saying things that would appear to encourage the Russian government to support Trump via more-legal means such as propaganda), hence the "cover-up."

Also, my name doesn't mean anything in particular, although I do like cows? I've been using the name since I was 11, I think, about a year or so before I first joined this site. I stuck with it even when the popular thing to do here was using real names, and I still like it, so I don't see any reason to change it now. I guess I like to be more-or-less anonymous, even though it's not impossible to figure out my personal info. I've mostly tried to avoid having a personal online presence in general.

I see what you mean by the context potentially. It's just that even if we look at contexts, there's so many of them stringed together at this point that there does seem to be something going on. Then people are recusing themselves, resigning, stepping down, left and right. There's finger pointing towards leakers, etc., literally anything except this issue. Plus the FBI is investigating the matter as well. There are at least several people who are known to be fairly close to the Russians (such as Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, etc.). Then there's the fact that Trump himself has been extremely pro Russia from the start of his campaign. Like I said, I'm not saying that this is a giant conspiracy starting with Trump himself (although that's possible), I just believe that there is something and it is incriminating enough that the administration is bending over backwards to do what in my eyes, context or not, does look like a cover up. Let me put it this way: if there truly is nothing, then what's there to be afraid of? Why all the dancing around?

At this stage, I don't give a fuck about Russia. Trump could be giving Putin your launch codes for all I care.

Meanwhile, he's busy ensuring that we won't have a planet to live on in the next 40 years.

Obviously this "Russia collusion" thing is for consumption by US liberals only, who at this point are entirely hopeless and lost. Sanders tried to save them from themselves and infuse some new blood, "New Deal" style, but they were too busy fawning over the Clintons. Many of them even liked what Trump did in Syria. He looked "presidential". And why not? What, Obama or Clinton wouldn't have done what he did? Clinton already said she would. Of course she would.

Anyway, most of the rest of the world doesn't give a crap whether the US elections were tampered by Putin, whether Slay Queen Hillary was more "qualified" than Trump(qualified to do what? Run a global hegemony that benefits USarians? Why the hell would we care about that?), whether US gets destabilized, or any of that.

Tbh, and don't take this the wrong way guys, but most of us, especially from poorer countries, just wish US would just...go away. You're not the benevolent empire you seem to think you are; "woke" liberals, "charming" Obamas, "feminist" Slay Queens, and Bernie-style "socialists" included. Time and time again, you make things 10x worse wherever and whenever you decide to "intervene". We don't want you to be "tolerant" enough to take in refugees from countries you go to war with. We kinda want you to stop bombing them in the first place.

The only thing I care about the US is the amount of CO2 and explosives it unleashes into the rest of the planet; other than that, you might as well all go sink into the Pacific pardon my french. :P

And this thing with liberals and Russia is getting *really* ridiculous, just admit you lost any connection you had with the masses and try to win them back. Do some freaking self-criticism. And don't put Lena Dunhamn in charge of your PR in the next elections.

For the collusion thing, see my above point. All I have to say is that it should be investigated. For consumption by US liberals only? Why make such a circus of it? Why destabilize the US, rile up anger, and, by extension, destabilize the world? Let's not forget that US authorities are investigating this. The US may not be a benevolent empire (and I will never claim so), but certainly what happens here affects more than just Americans. Again, the world doesn't need to care, and I'm not saying it should, just saying that calling this a conspiracy to make a conspiracy seems a bit far fetched.

Hillary was a fairly useless candidate in an election that didn't really have any particularly great candidates period. Sanders was ok at best only because of how genuine he seemed. Beyond that, I'm not super sure how great he would've been either.

Lost connection with the masses? Hillary did win the popular vote. She lost because of her inability to get votes from folks in the Rust Belt, a part of the country that traditionally votes Democrat. There's plenty of reasons for that, some ranging from Hillary being a bad candidate, others claiming that the third party vote took it, and even more claiming that it was fake news and propaganda campaigns that did it. I think it's some combination of these reasons. But I digress. Point is, that's hardly 'masses'. I could care less to defend Hillary: I sincerely hope this is the last we ever see of her and that Elizabeth Warren becomes the candidate in 2020, or someone similar. That being said, I don't think it's remotely fair to claim that the Democrats lost connection with 'masses', especially given how close the vote was in the Rust Belt.

The impact of Russia's interference (which is a real thing) cannot be measured. We simply don't know how much of a difference it made in the elections. I don't think that anyone here can claim to know the difference it made either. But if people are colluding with a foreign power to beat the opposing party and then try to push that power's agenda to the detriment of the citizens, those citizens will care, and that goes for the US and any country where elections have been tampered with by any foreign power. Granted, votes were not tampered with. But if Trump and company are going to be Putin's stooge, then yes, it does damn well matter to Americans.

Just keep in mind, when I say "masses", I don't mean "a bunch of mindless sheeple". Just the average working person.

As an outsider, I was still reading and watching a lot of US liberal "pundits" and I was always left with the question : "who the hell are they addressing? Who is this message for?"

Like really, most of them were writing in a way that would only convince only those that were already convinced anyway.
What's the point in that? Are you trying to convince people to come to your side, by providing an incentive for them to do so, by connecting with them, by mobilizing them,
or are you patting yourself in the back for the amazing achievement of watching John Oliver and voting Democrat(big freaking whoop),
and claiming anyone that would vote for Trump or a 3rd party would be the most horrible person ever? After the elections, I was reading liberal "thinkpieces" like this gem:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1610198/-Be-happy-for-coal-miners-losing-their-health-insurance-They-re-getting-exactly-what-they-voted-for

...Seriously?

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

(Note : This is not a guy defending Trump, for those that would be confused. This is a guy that lost his job because he advocated actual action against Trump instead of just smug jokes).
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-rensin


Also keep in mind, that maybe you didn't lost to Trump, or to "The Russians", but you lost due to a lot of people not even bothering
to go vote, because they didn't see any difference between Clinton and Trump. Obama managed to mobilize people
with his message of "Hope" and "Yes we can" and won 2 terms. Clinton's message OTOH was terribly weak. The turnout in Obama's first election
was 62% and he won 53% of that. The turnout of 2016 was 55% and Clinton won 48%. Has there been any self-criticism from
the side of the Democrats about that, or is it all about Russians?

I understand of course that as an American you care whether a foreign power interferes in your elections,
but you should probably understand that, yes, the rest of the world is affected a lot by what happens in the US,
but really we don't care much about your internal squabbles.

Especially since USA itself historically interferes with the affairs of other sovereign nations all the time.

Anyway, let's relax with a little song :)



(also, wth is it with the formatting of the post, I just can't get it right) :P

Jesus, Samoth... 9/11 conspiracies? You've really gone off the deep end...

Ah, it is always easy to laugh at someone else, but I beg you to remember: Almost exactly to the day two months ago, you and everybody else was laughing at Trump who had said "Look what happened in Sweden! Sweden!".

As we all know, nothing happened in Sweden. What an idiot. Except... almost exactly to the day two months later, something did happen. Funny how Trump knew it two months ahead of time. Looks like he is a medium.

Maybe, just maybe, he wasn't hallucinating, but he knew about this incident because the CIA are staging these. Only just, he accidentially picked up the wrong page in his calendar, and got the date wrong by two months. Thus, he revealed then-secret information about something that was going to happen, thinking everybody knew already anyway because it had happened.

Unlikely? Maybe. Impossible? Not with what US agencies have done in the past. I'm not saying this is exactly what happened. But I'm saying it is too easy to do away with the possibility just because the idea seems nuts at casual inspection.