Sanctions on Russia

[Tassman]

Yes, I've referenced Breitbart. Now how about you actually deal with the facts they reported instead of desperately reaching for the genetic fallacy?

"Breitbart" and "fact". This is an oxymoron.

Especially in this instance when the founding editor of Breitbart, Steve Bannon, is also Senior Counsellor to the President elect.

Look, I will gladly condemn Russia as soon as someone presents hard evidence that they did anything worth condemning.

The FBI, the CIA and virtually every other intel-agency in the USA agree that the evidence indicates Russia was trying to help Trump win the Election. And, with the exception of Trump and his cohorts, this is also the bipartisan position. So, just how much evidence do you want?

[elam]

The Korean war is ongoing, though a cease fire is in force. It ended in stalemate, there were no winners.

Sure there were. South Korea maintained independence and North Korea didn't take it over.

You got me here! I should have said "there were no military winners".

There are always winners in war, whether there is victory or not! The military has to be supplied, profits are there for the taking...

Something doesn't stop being a victory just because technically it hasn't "officially" ended.

There was no victory merely a pause in hostilities. Victory requires one side to surrender to the other. This hasn't happened and border skirmishes continue to this day.

You may not be aware that during a little known period between 1966 and 1969 known as the Korean DMZ Conflict the Korean war was almost fully reignited.

These days only the USA presence in South Korea preserves the peace. The USA troops while stationed in SK are on full war alert. That is how fragile the armistice is...

In any case [the Korean war] was a UN intervention (21 countries), not a USA intervention, though the USA led the contingent on behalf of the UN.

By this logic the US never won a war in its history outside of maybe when it went up against the Native Americans or Mexicans. It was one of multiple countries in both World Wars, the Civil War was against itself, "the War of 1812" was part of a larger conflict in which it was a bit player, and the Revolutionary War involved France being on its side.

Apart from the years of internal strife, expansionism & colonisation wars, the USA had an isolationist policy.

The USA didn't enter WW1 until 1917, three years after the war began, and it did so to prevent Germany from forming an alliance with Mexico and declaring war on the USA by proxy, and also because Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic was disrupting USA trade and had the potential to cripple the American economy. (Until the declaration of war, the USA profited (carpetbagged) by supplying both the allies & the axis powers). Another reason for the USA's entry into WW1 that is rarely mentioned is that with the withdrawal of the Russians from the war in 1917, the Germans were able to move their troops in the eastern front to the stalemate in the west. Such had the potential to deliver victory to the Germans.

The USA involvement in the war lasted a little over twelve months. Its seemingly unlimited supply of fresh troops, equipment & supplies demoralizing the Germans, and they surrendered in November 1918.

In short America did not win WW1, it simply shifted the balance of power of a coalition of countries, ending a stalemate.

The USA involvement in WW2 was much different. Whilst it maintained an isolationist policy in the lead up to its entry into the European war, the USA financed & supplied Germany and also profited from supplying the allies throughout the war. Ironically, the USA's involvement in the European war was instigated by Japan's bombing on Pearl Harbour - the USA declared war on Japan who was allied with Germany & Italy, who in support declared war on the USA.. The allied war policy was first Germany, then Japan.

The European war had been ongoing for nearly four years before the first USA troops landed in Europe in late 1942. In the meantime the sea & air battle for the Pacific had begun, and it was fierce. What many people don't realise is the result of WW2 was an accumulation of victory in various battles throughout Europe & North Africa. So there was no single victory but a series of victories each attributed to a coalition of armed forces or the armed forces of a single allied nation. The Pacific war was different. The Japanese honour the Australian forces as the victors in the jungles of New Guinea, the surrounding islands & SE Asia. As far as Australians are concerned the USA was the victor everywhere else...

Again Iraq wasn't won. Just getting rid of a ruler doesn't end a war.

It didn't get rid of the ruler. It got rid of the whole government.

The result: chaos that continues to this day!

In most other wars that enlightened Western nations have pursued, victory has seen the increase in the standard of living of the vanquished. Failure to ensure such is defeat...

As a rule of thumb: victory cannot be construed as destroying social infrastructure, creating a chaotic environment, causing civil war, being the instigator of increased criminality and social decline. Especially when the victor invaded a country unjustifiably and has to spend tens of billions annually just to maintain the existing impasse.

Sectarian violence continued. To make matters worse the invasion caused an insurgency against the invaders (the Americans). Hostilities continued after the USA officially left in 2011 (they hired mercenaries to replace their forces).

All of this took place after the war.

The insurgency was part of the war and kept the USA military in Iraq for 8 years, and they are back as if they never left.

You seem to be trying to define the end of a war so oddly strictly that of course you can just go ahead and claim it didn't win wars because your definition of "victory" is so weirdly specific. It went into the country, deposed the government, as was the goal. Then the war was won.

Technically, a war is not won until all insurgency is contained. That is the military definition. Propagandists sell a fantasy to the gullible...

One can win a battle and still lose the war...the battles in Iraq continue...the war has not been resolved.

By your apparent definition "victory" the Israeli's resolved the Palestinian conflict back in 1967, yet the battles continue and the war remains unresolved...

There being bad consequences to the end of a war does not mean the war was not over.

All wars have bad consequences! But victory can only be declared when the majority of belligerents have been subdued, and a long period of peace is possible.

Unless you're going to try to argue World War I didn't end because some of the goofups in the resolution helped cause World War II.

That is a silly remark!

WW1 ended because the axis powers surrendered and a long period of peace ensued.

WW2 was a consequence of the failure of the Weimar Republic imposed upon Germany chiefly by France, plus the economically crippling war repatriations inflicted on Germany chiefly by France, and the Great Depression imposed on the world by the economic collapse of the USA. It is an interesting study, I suggest you investigate it...

I don't recall Trump making mention of Clinton causing WW3 (maybe he did (?)). However, in the international conservative press, it was a regular topic of conversation as a distinct possibility. Trump was seen as a big question mark.

I'm not talking about Trump saying it specifically (maybe he did, who knows). But it was a fear I saw expressed by a number of people.

Yeah! I noticed that fear thing being stirred up in the tabloids. In my then ongoing review of the international press portals Hillary has depicted as the instigator not Donald. Six months ago Trump has still being depicted as a clown, and the prediction was Hillary would be taking the oath on January 20th.

________________

Rumour (which I am now starting) has it that moments before the inauguration of Donald, Hillary has heard singing a modified version of the theme from Evita...

Who could foresee?
I'd come to feel about you
What you felt about me
Why only now, when I see
That you've drifted away?
What a surprise
What a cliche

Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career
And where is the clown?
Quick, send in the clown

Don't bother
He's here

[elam]

Look, I will gladly condemn Russia as soon as someone presents hard evidence that they did anything worth condemning.

The FBI, the CIA and virtually every other intel-agency in the USA agree ...

Curiously, eleven of the thirteen agencies are silent on the matter - especially those divisions that specialise in cyber crime.

The FBI, the CIA and virtually every other intel-agency in the USA agree that the evidence indicates Russia was trying to help Trump win the Election. And, with the exception of Trump and his cohorts, this is also the bipartisan position. So, just how much evidence do you want.

In my case I want solid evidence not innuendo.

I think it was John McAfee of virus & malware security fame who pointed out it is a trivial exercise to create a false flag to lead investigators astray.

What nags at me is the FBI & CIA describing the server side of the attack as sophisticated and the instigators as expert, disciplined & careful in concealment. Then we discover the release of the docs as amateurish and transparent. There is something wrong in this apparent contradiction.

The argument you are presenting is circular: x says it has evidence that y did it. Therefore, there is evidence that y did it because x says so. Unfortunately, x has yet to reveal any conclusive evidence that is acceptable to the experts in cyber security external to the those with a vested interest.