- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, in fact, you didn't. You're now trying to cover up your mistake by faking the evidence and not using the same quote you used earlier. In the earlier quote you included my House of Lords link as well as that one sentence.
We have no treaty in reference to cyber terrorism or cyber attacks? I'm pretty sure both are against international law, which we theoretically uphold.Te difference of course, being that we do not have a legally binding treaty obligating us to do so.
I don't agree with your rules of rumor and innuendo and that's all you have....yes, it does. I don't know how to make that more blatant than b-quoting it for you, unless you want me to break up my discussion in chunks and b-quote the book below each claim?
Of course they did. The hackers were an instrument of foreign policy.
That's as good an excuse as any for not producing evidence when you want to make some money, as Mr Buy-My-Book is trying to do.Did you read that part about necessary ambiguity when discussing Intelligence Community Assessments?
I used your exact quotes as I made comments on them. There was NOTHING THERE showing the Russia government was responsible for the Estonia attack.Richard Clarke spent years trying to convince Administrations of both parties that Al Qaeda was coming, and found himself beating up against a similar wall with the Bush Administration on Cyber. It's not a surprise to me he went public - in his shoes, I would be tempted to do so as well.
But you deny that he even said what I am pointing out to you that he did.
I "denied" your assertion that the Russians attacked Estonia because there was no proof of that happening and in all these posts you have failed to produce any.You deny that states use cyber attacks and then go to great length to defend a position that would make it almost irresistibly tempting for them to do so.
I dismissed "testimony" - point by point - of supposition and rumor, which is all you supplied.You skip over or dismiss the testimony of those who know the subject far better than you, and to what purpose? Because you don't want to admit that NATO is basically useless for much of 21st Century Warfare?
You may find this interesting.
How Should The West Respond? « The Dish
The argument that Russia is showing its weakness is based upon the fact that they cant influence a nation on its own border with strong ethnic ties by anything but a show of force. Thats weakness.
invasion is a tool of the desperate, used only when other cost effective methods are no longer available.
Not necessarily.
To a bully country this is the way one shows influence. It has always been. To a bully country not showing force and the army is considered weakness.
There may be cultural specific perspectives here that may provide vacuum between us and them that Putin may use to his advantage. I mean he grabs Crimea and we cannot really say "we are winning for he is weak" here, can we?
But can Russia maintain control in the Ukraine and crimea
The more Ukraine is isolated and exposed to Russian terror and iron grip, corrupt, mafia, regime, the more Russian can control Ukrainian Crimea. The more Ukraine can fight (and I hear they are full of weapons) and receives some help the less the above can happen.
Ah, the Gordon Gekko school of morality. :lol:Worried? No...I am (selfishly) loving it.
All this concern is sending my precious metals and other commodities up.
Besides, I think the whole thing is over-rated.
Sure, the Russian-dominated Crimea is being occupied by Russia...but the rest of the Ukraine should (imo) stay Russian army-free so long as the eastern Ukraine does not try to separate from the Western Ukraine. imo.
And even if it does...my precious metals will probably go way up.
Worried? No...I am (selfishly) loving it.
All this concern is sending my precious metals and other commodities up.
Besides, I think the whole thing is over-rated.
Sure, the Russian-dominated Crimea is being occupied by Russia...but the rest of the Ukraine should (imo) stay Russian army-free so long as the eastern Ukraine does not try to separate from the Western Ukraine. imo.
And even if it does...my precious metals will probably go way up.
Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria. Stop trying to thread hijack.
The Ukraine is not going to give up it's seaports over this. Odessa is as much (or more) of a commercial port than Sevastopol.
The Crimea was barely included in the Ukraine as it was. It has a special designation compared to other regions and is relatively independent of the Ukrainian government.
I don't think Russia can maintain control of the Crimea and Ukraine if the situation devolves into another Chechnya.
Yes, I see a likelihood of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction proliferation to other countries. Ukraine gave up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world upon promises of assurances of the integrity of their borders. They now have paid the price of not being a nuclear power.
No nuclear power has been invaded or attacked. Dozens of non-nuclear powers have. Easy enough lesson for any country to understand. There is no deal, negotiation or treaty for any country to not obtain nuclear weapons or give them up that should be seen as trickery.
Yup. Hell, the Crimeans practically welcomed the Russian invaders. When's the last time anyone has responded like that? It's been awhile...
Yes.
Russia has many troops that I heard topple up to 150 thousand. So they may take Kiev, but maintaining an occupied Ukraine would require more and would exhaust Russia out of its resources making it even weaker than before. Eventually it will have to let go but now in a crumbling state. It is then that I think that countries that are under Russian oppression as of now may then want to become independent also.
Hence Russia better keep away from Ukraine for its own sake. Ukraine is armed and can fight and resist. Especially if kept under the light of media (i.e., not alone) and aided with some help.
Ah, the Gordon Gekko school of morality. :lol:
Also, the impending sanctions will speed up the financial stresses of maintaining an occupied Ukraine. One can only hope Putin is wise enough to avoid collapsing Russia completely.
I don't have much to say on the topic. Sure I watch the news like anyone else but there's nothing for me to about it.I don't know why we're not talking more about the situation in Ukraine on this site.
What worries me is how few people remember how many times the USA has sent the U.S. military into countries all over this planet to protect and rescue American citizens without asking permission from anyone.
If it's OK for the USA to do that, why isn't OK for Russia to do it?
Is there one set of rules for the USA and another set of rules for Russia?
If so-Fill me in, Because this is news to me.
It's like sports. You cheer when your team scores an interception and curse when the other team intercepts. There's no hypocrisy, we're just cheering for our own teams.What worries me is how few people remember how many times the USA has sent the U.S. military into countries all over this planet to protect and rescue American citizens without asking permission from anyone.
If it's OK for the USA to do that, why isn't OK for Russia to do it?
Is there one set of rules for the USA and another set of rules for Russia?
If so-Fill me in, Because this is news to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?