It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the Russia thing is absurd

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I didn't move any goal posts. I asked a specific question and he didn't deliver. I also elaborated on why that was. I never changed my question. You can go look back at what I asked. So try again.

PS: I'm not the DNC. I'm not even a Democrat.
edit on 14-12-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You asked a 2 part question, do you deny that we dont still directly control them?

sure the initial invasion was in the past, but our control is still present day, and reservation land is supposed to be theirs... and we still take the land away at a whim (see some politician can make some money) and we tell them to sod off when they complain.

You may not be a democrat but you certainly are far to the left of most people.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You asked a 2 part question, do you deny that we dont still directly control them?

No I didn't. That is just one question.


sure the initial invasion was in the past, but our control is still present day, and reservation land is supposed to be theirs... and we still take the land away at a whim (see some politician can make some money) and we tell them to sod off when they complain.

Influence != control and ESPECIALLY not direct control. Try again.


You may not be a democrat but you certainly are far to the left of most people.

Lol. You lecture me about self-reflection and you have the arrogance to assume things about me? Then you can't even apologize for your mistake (while simultaneously moving your own goals posts about your idiotic assumptions about me back). You're too much.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It is absurd because this hacker group is being equated with the Russian state.


Yes, how could a group of hackers who use a bear as their mascot allegedly hack into the Olympic database to expose American doping possibly be connected to the Russian government? Since this is the Mud Pit, I'd like to point out that your post was exceptionally stupid. Please tell me you don't really believe what you said.


The name Fancy Bear was given to them by Crowd Strike, genius. They must have adopted it. Yes, they most likely are Russian, but no they didn't choose a bear mascot because they were Russian.

Are they Russian government? Since you're a genius, you must have that piece of evidence that connects GRU or the Russian government to Fancy Bear's hacks in general, and the DNC and Podesta hacks in particular, to justify your brilliant conclusions. I wouldn't mind hearing it.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Puppylove

Good post.

It also turns the spotlight on the Obama Administration's inability to protect classified and secret material. In essence, its shown how incompetent our current defense leaders are.

Interesting how the MSM hasn't asked that question. If classified and secret material keeps getting hacked/stollen, well who's in charge of preventing that from happening. But then that turns the attention towards Obama, Hillary and the crew....

Hence, fake news from a fake MSM.



Yep!!

I've been trying to point that out also.




posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Holding countries hostage, and forcing them to do what you want through coercion while doing little to really improve rather than hamper the lives of their citizens. Basically nothing but bad deals they have no recourse but to accept. Basically completely destabilizing their country and turning them into your bitches. (What the US basically does)

Is not much morally better than.

Taking over said country, making them part of your own and giving them all the rights and protections of the rest of your citizens.

While both are bad, I actually think I'd argue the first is worse. At least with the second their can be some stability and improvement in the lives of the people rather than nothing but a continued destabilization. But then again I guess the first country gets to pretend they're their own nation, so there's that.
edit on 12/14/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What's good for one nation is not always bad for another nation. There are many groups vying for power, not all nations, some outside manipulating nations. Various nations have alliances, etc. It's infinitely more complicated than what's good for Russia is bad for the US and vice versa.



I said from whatever POV..

Sure we might have common interests, but the motivavating factors for Russian interests won't care one speck if they negatively effect America.
Same in reverse.

They might not specifically try to hurt us, but if they have to hurt us to personally gain. They will without question.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Using your logic no nation should ever try and work with another because... omg, the other nation might occasionally put themselves first.

Then again, that might be good advice considering the effects our dealings with other countries have had on them.
edit on 12/14/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Where did I say that the US was innocent? I specifically asked which countries the US still has control over. By the way, while the native conquering was awful, that happened a while back and isn't recent. There isn't much the US can do at this point to fix that. The US certainly isn't going to cede over land to the natives to build a new nation.

You mention Vietnam for instance. If anything our post-intervention there was the best of any other country. We completely abandoned that country for half a century and let them do their own thing. Now Vietnam is an ok country.


"You mention Vietnam for instance. If anything our post-intervention there was the best of any other country. We completely abandoned that country for half a century and let them do their own thing. Now Vietnam is an ok country."


Now Vietnam is an ok country."


Now Vietnam is an ok country."


Now Vietnam is an ok country."


Now Vietnam is an ok country."


Ask any of the Vietnamese people who are missing arms and legs from landmines and unexploded ordinance if they agree with your assessment that "Now Vietnam is an ok country."



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

"Ok" is a rather vague descriptor and I'm not about to get in some petty tit-for-tat over what your definition of "ok" is versus my definition of it. So before you get your panties too twisted I'm going to agree to disagree here.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was pointing out the history of where the US got involved in the governments of a country and how much of a problem it ended up being and later on it came back to hit the USA hard.

We were involved with Vietnam far longer than the policing action that took effect. As I pointed out, Ho Chi Minh did as for the US aid in becoming an independent country, to which the USA said no, siding with France. When things started to go wrong, the US started by propping up first France, and then the leader of South Vietnam only to get draw into a regional conflict after that. Sometimes it is the lead ups to the events that cause just as much problems as the actual problem.

Yes Vietnam is doing fine, now, but how many years did it take for the chaos and the problems to resolve themselves before they got to that point?




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join