durangodawood
Dis Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 23,610
- 15,762
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
You believe everything that comes out of "Deep State"?They're not. That's been settled.
Upvote
0
You believe everything that comes out of "Deep State"?They're not. That's been settled.
I see Russia's principal crimes in the U.S. as interfering with both the 2016 and 2020 elections and hacking into the entire federal computer system.
Certainly putting bounties on American soldiers' heads is horrible--but unproven.
Election interference had more far reaching overwhelmingly negative consequences, and has been proven by the Mueller investigation where 30 Russians have been indicted.
Biden's tone yesterday was not one of retribution....rather, setting the terms of our relationship going forward:
Good afternoon, everyone. Earlier this week, I spoke with President Putin of Russia about the nature of our relationship — the relationship between our two countries. And I was candid and respectful; the conversation was candid and respectful.
Two great powers with significant responsibility for global stability. And President Putin and I have had a significant responsibility to steward that relationship. I take that responsibility very seriously, as I’m sure he does.
Russia and Americans are both proud and patriotic people. And I believe the Russian people, like the American people, are invested in peaceful and a secure future of our world.
....
Today, I’ve approved several steps, including expulsion of several Russian officials, as a consequence of their actions. I’ve also signed an executive order authorizing new measures, including sanctions to address specific harmful actions that Russia has taken against U.S. interests.
I was clear with President Putin that we could have gone further, but I chose not to do so, to be — I chose to be proportionate.
The United States is not looking to kick off a cycle of ecs- — of escalation and conflict with Russia. We want a stable, predictable relationship.
If Russia continues to interfere with our democracy, I’m prepared to take further actions to respond. It is my responsibility, as President of the United States, to do so.
But throughout our long history of competition, our two countries have been able to find ways to manage tensions and to keep them from escalating out of control.
There are also areas where Russia and the United States can and should work together. For example, in the earliest days of my administration, we were able to move quickly to extend, for five years, the New START Treaty, and maintain that key element of nuclear stability between our nations. That was in the interest of the United States, of Russia, and, quite frankly, of the world, and we got it done.
When I spoke to President Putin, I expressed my belief that communication between the two of us, personally and directly, was to be essential in moving forward to a more effective relationship. And he agreed on that point.
To that end, I proposed that we meet in person this summer in Europe, for a summit to address a range of issues facing both of our countries. Our teams are discussing that possibility right now.
Remarks by President Biden on Russia | The White House
Kind words, but sanctions nonetheless. "Proportionate" sanctions, but sanctions nonetheless.
That is still the cycle of retribution. We are just making sure the retribution is "proportionate" as we determine it.
However, it is true that if they have this meeting there is hope of a better path. So let's give that time.
Russia has behaved appallingly over the last decade.
They've assassinated dissidents living in NATO countries using nerve agents that also killed totally innocent bystanders, annexed parts of Ukraine, taken land by proxy off at least 3 counties and conducted extensive cyber-warfare against the US and many other Western democracies. Plus of course interfering in the electoral systems of a number of those countries.
You believe everything that comes out of "Deep State"?
Are you suggesting the US doesn't meddle in elections, kills bystanders or spy on other nations, or get involved in conflicts with questionable rationales?
I am not saying we can trust Russia. But we also can't blame them for not trusting us.
Either way, there are many news outlets and often very few people who know the details of White House deliberations or the state of the Russia investigation. So the sources have the power to set the terms with the journalists, and one of those terms is often, “don’t use my name.”I certainly don’t believe anything that comes out of the NYT based on anonymous sources. If anything, when reports like that come out, believe the opposite, and you won’t be too far off from the truth.
Despicable as it seems, there are boundaries in international politics that countries are expected to stay within while still doing quite vile things. Spying is pretty much expected. Meddling is pretty much expected (although within quite defined boundaries). The danger with Russia currently is that they're going way beyond those previously accepted boundaries, especially with their raw expansionist behavior.
What about assisting in siege warfare and the Saudi's targeting of civilians in Yemen which we did under the Obama and Trump administrations, causing one of the largest humanitarian crisis in the world?
And in regards to election meddling:
Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too. (Published 2018)
“If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States “absolutely” has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, “and I hope we keep doing it.”
What do you seriously expect to be the result of such an argument?
'Oh you're right, we suck. Best we do nothing!'
The appeals to hypocrisy are an argument for inaction. If we have to wait for our nations to be perfect to act then we will never get anywhere.
And on balance, yes, our values are better than Russia's (though I can see why a lot of US Christians like Russia given some of the groups the Russian government has chosen to support vs oppress). You can write this guff about the US in the US. You couldn't write what we write about Russia in Russia.
Ultimately, I am far more comfortable at the notion of a liberal democracy pushing liberal democracy, than I am Christofascist authoritarians pushing Christofascist authoritarianism, because the former is miles better than the latter.
I would imagine the quote is worth finding in full and has perhaps been misrepresented, because the idea that Russia didn't engage in this behaviour until after 2015 is absolute grade-A horse apples.
I expect that we have a right to call out our government's wrong actions. Biden now stepped back from support in Yemen, which was the right thing to do, and should have happened sooner. So yes, inaction in this case is by far best.
If you mean inaction in supporting the Saudis in war crimes, yes, that would be great. We should definitely not act.
If you mean towards Russia, I said we should not trust them. I also said they have reason not to trust us.
I didn't defend Russia's values. I simply pointed out we don't live up to our values.
You may find it in full if you want to disagree with the New York Times. However, you might want to accurately read the quote first. The quote said the analyst Steven Hall retired in 2015.
But what we do in Yemen has nothing to do with condemnation of Russia elsewhere. They're literally different scenarios. Failure in one area does not mean we cannot do something better in a different area. Bringing one situation up when we had been discussing another is needless whataboutism and is just dragging the conversation off-topic.
Yes, repeating the quote doesn't alter my analysis of it, your lack of response to it, or the inadequacy of quote to support your initial argument.
It was a response to the poster who indicated that Russia was acting outside the bounds. We certainly do as well at times. We just justify it as we do it.
To the extent that they do, no, we do not - and certainly not recently. False equivalences help no-one.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
Either way, there are many news outlets and often very few people who know the details of White House deliberations or the state of the Russia investigation. So the sources have the power to set the terms with the journalists, and one of those terms is often, “don’t use my name.”
There used to be accepted rules in journalism as to how to use and how not to use anonymous sources - rules that went out the window when Trump came along.
their coverage did not show a whiff of skepticism