US Politics: What Price Loyalty?

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Notone said:

Destablizing the west and reduce influence in the world sounds like endgame, if you assume that Russia or a more Russia friendly power like China steps in and fills the void left behind by the US.

Yes, which is why I said I would be seeking a different result in that situation, one that does not see said targeted country just collapse into infighting but actually has a constructive purpose.

Hence the difference. Information warfare is overwhelming the masses with falsehoods to drown out the truth. Ideological warfare is shifting political realities through propaganda.

There's a difference.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

No, information warfare is what the Russians did.

You said " That's stuff like shutting down their power grid, breaking all of their computers remotely, industrial sabotage, etc... I said a blanket step 1 is harsh language" - that's information warfare. 

6 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I would flood the targeted nation with ideological triggers that make democracy seem preferable to the current system. Start simple with just providing support to existing pro-democracy groups and expand from there to engineer situations that demonstrate the invalidity of the current system.

So...start a civil war in Syria then? Like we kind of did in 2011? That didn't work out so well. 

6 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

So it's like what the Russians did. But they didn't really have an endgame besides sowing chaos and making the U.S. and democracy look bad. I don't just want to sow chaos and make the existing regime look bad, I want a specific outcome.

If you're not willing to support the rebellion militarily all you're going to end up doing is getting a lot of people killed and tightening the dictator's control. 

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Um, apparently you forgot the Soviet-Afghan War.  As for proxy wars in the Middle East, all wars in the Middle East are basically proxy wars, depending on semantics.

I wasn't thinking of it that way, but sure, you're right. In which case it's been 30 years. And that didn't work out so well for anyone, either, and one of the reasons was the lack of endgame the US had other than 'make Russia bleed'. 

I don't think that Russia or Iran simply want to make the US bleed.

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ha!  I think you vastly over-estimate Putin's resolve to have direct conflict with the US.  He has bluffed his entire country into disproportionate influence on the world stage.  As for Iran, they'll do what they always do, including Iraq of course, but they're not going to directly engage.  Both regimes aren't going to go all out in keeping Assad if we move in because that'd be incredibly stupid.  The infinitely smarter move would be to bleed us once we're on the ground.

Again, you're ignoring what Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey also do in this situation, and that many different actors with different goals often results in not a 'smart' decision. As an example, allowing Iran and Russia to fight a proxy insurgency against the US kind of fucks over Turkey, and will likely be unacceptable to Israel. It'd make SA happy, as they'll have another place to practice using their weaponry, but that also makes it more likely it'll escalate. It would also likely have some bad effects on Iraq and would likely allow another reoccurence of ISIS to take hold somewhere. 

I mean, the 'smarter' move would to not use chemical weapons in the first place. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Talk about two dogs that refuse to let go of that bone! 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Whether it's constructive or not depends a bit on the perspective, I guess.

Wanting to reduce a nations grip on the world to potentially take over yourself sounds somewhat constructive. Your perspective is a bit too retricted on the domestic situation in the US. From Russia's (or China's) perspective this is probably more of an entertaining/worrisome sideshow.
What I mean is, the US reduces their international aid/investment in Africa. Now if Russia steps in and does some investment there, what happens is, Russia's influence over that region grows, while the US is busy figuring out whether Trump should get a second term or spend the remainder of this term behind bars. The destablization of the US is merely the means to an end.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

You said " That's stuff like shutting down their power grid, breaking all of their computers remotely, industrial sabotage, etc... I said a blanket step 1 is harsh language" - that's information warfare. 

So...start a civil war in Syria then? Like we kind of did in 2011? That didn't work out so well. 

If you're not willing to support the rebellion militarily all you're going to end up doing is getting a lot of people killed and tightening the dictator's control. 

 

Oh, I thought you were responding to the 'harsh language' part. Misunderstanding.

And no, I would not attempt to start a civil war, rather to promote such an overwhelming surge in democratic support that any conflict is limited to hours, not years. This is where you have to be specific in who you're targeting and with what. I'm not talking about getting the farmers to march on the capitol, I mean identified engagement with figures of influence in the concerned country. Basically I'm suggesting the long-distance brainwashing of the officers that keep these animals in power. Not with such an unrealistic goal as to have them overthrow the government, but to decrease the amount of support the dictator can draw on from the military. The impacts of that would be felt long before a shot was fired. Again, this is why I was trying to make the distinction between what I want to happen and what should/could happen.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In which case it's been 30 years. And that didn't work out so well for anyone, either, and one of the reasons was the lack of endgame the US had other than 'make Russia bleed'. 

First, of course it's been 30 years since a Cold War proxy war.  The Cold War ended 30 years ago.  Second, the Soviet-Afghan War worked out pretty fucking well for us, as it devastated the Soviet economy and is a primary factor in ending the Cold War.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think that Russia or Iran simply want to make the US bleed.

I think they want to degrade our influence and increase their own, like any country.  The best way to do that is to bleed us out like Iran did with Dubya's Iraq war.  The worst way to do that is direct conflict that would start WW3.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, you're ignoring what Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey also do in this situation, and that many different actors with different goals often results in not a 'smart' decision.

No I'm not.  I'm ignoring the notion their respective postures would fundamentally change in any way if we put troops on the ground in Syria, because they wouldn't.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

allowing Iran and Russia to fight a proxy insurgency against the US kind of fucks over Turkey

In what way?

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

will likely be unacceptable to Israel

Why?

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I mean, the 'smarter' move would to not use chemical weapons in the first place.

That's true.  Unless the gambit is to deliberately provoke Trump, which is entirely possible.

[Fragile Bird]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Talk about two dogs that refuse to let go of that bone! 

Been there, done that, useless after a while, right?

[Martell Spy]

It will be nice when we have a President again one day.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I find this update to be confusing:

Quote

The F.B.I. agents who raided the office and hotel of President Trump’s lawyer on Monday were seeking all records related to the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Mr. Trump was heard making vulgar comments about women, according to three people who have been briefed on the contents of a federal search warrant.

The search warrant also sought evidence of whether the lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, tried to suppress damaging information about Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

It is not clear what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played regarding the tape, which was made public a month before the election. But the fact that the agents were seeking documents related to the tape reveals a new front in the investigation into Mr. Cohen that is being led by the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan.

The disclosure comes a day after it was revealed that the authorities also sought documents from Mr. Cohen related to payments made to two women who claim they had affairs with Mr. Trump, Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford, as well as information on the role of the publisher of The National Enquirer in silencing the women.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-access-hollywood.html

 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

First, of course it's been 30 years since a Cold War proxy war.  The Cold War ended 30 years ago.  Second, the Soviet-Afghan War worked out pretty fucking well for us, as it devastated the Soviet economy and is a primary factor in ending the Cold War.

Sure! It also created a massive terrorist organization that has dragged the US into a 17-year war. So...yay!

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I think they want to degrade our influence and increase their own, like any country.  The best way to do that is to bleed us out like Iran did with Dubya's Iraq war.  The worst way to do that is direct conflict that would start WW3.

I don't think they want the US in Syria though. The best way to make that not happen is to, ya know, not provoke us - especially right after the POTUS says 'we are going to get out of Syria real soon'. I mean, really - if you want to increase their influence and degrade ours, having us leave is hugely preferable to having us stay. 

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

No I'm not.  I'm ignoring the notion their respective postures would fundamentally change in any way if we put troops on the ground in Syria, because they wouldn't.

You think Israel would be particularly comfortable with the US fighting a war right next to them? My understanding is that one of the reasons that Obama didn't intercede directly in Syria was because Israel said 'no'. 

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

In what way?

Well, right now Turkey is able to go and kill a lot of Kurds that they've wanted to kill for a while. If we invade Syria that would make that significantly harder to do, as the US doesn't really tend to like other countries flying in their controlled airspace. Refugees would continue to stream into Turkey, probably a lot more than before. 

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Why?

See above. The civil war was already pretty shitty for Israel; causing even more chaos and ripping apart the country that's even closer to them than Iraq would be worse. Making Iran more likely to commit even more is also not going to make them happy. 

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That's true.  Unless the gambit is to deliberately provoke Trump, which is entirely possible.

I guess - but again, Trump showed every sign of wanting to pull out, leaving Syria and the civil war to Assad directly. Even barrel bombs didn't matter to Trump, but chemical weapons did. I suspect that this is the case of simply attempting to assign rational decision making to someone who isn't necessarily rational; the same arguments were used last year by some folks to indicate that it HAD to be a false flag op, because Putin isn't stupid.

Putin might not be stupid, but he does have a habit of pushing harder and harder in what he can do, and Assad may be stupid (or at least malignant). 

[Martell Spy]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find this update to be confusing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-access-hollywood.html

 

Very interesting, thanks.

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find this update to be confusing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-access-hollywood.html

 

Yea it's a bit weird. The only thing I can say is that within hours of the Access Hollywood tape, Wikileaks started dumping Podesta's emails. This might be a thread they've been following which lead to this moment.

[Martell Spy]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Yea it's a bit weird. The only thing I can say is that within hours of the Access Hollywood tape, Wikileaks started dumping Podesta's emails. This might be a thread they've been following which lead to this moment.

And of course they have cooperation from some in the campaign.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yea it's a bit weird. The only thing I can say is that within hours of the Access Hollywood tape, Wikileaks started dumping Podesta's emails. This might be a thread they've been following which lead to this moment.

When I first heard it reported, they were talking about broader attempts to look for more examples of Cohen covering things up for Trump, but this seems like a weird path to follow. Moreover, it possibly gives Trump a legitimate excuse to say the FBI has gone too far in their investigation.

But hell, if they're going for things like this, why not go after the cut footage from The Apprentice, in which it's been reported that Trump dropped N-bombs regularly?Actually,now that I think about it, can Dems subpoena that if they retake the House? 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

When I first heard it reported, they were talking about broader attempts to look for more examples of Cohen covering things up for Trump, but this seems like a weird path to follow. Moreover, it possibly gives Trump a legitimate excuse to say the FBI has gone too far in their investigation.

But hell, if they're going for things like this, why not go after the cut footage from The Apprentice, in which it's been reported that Trump dropped N-bombs regularly?Actually,now that I think about it, can Dems subpoena that if they retake the House? 

Possible that what they are really looking for is payments to Mark Burnett regarding the rumored-to-exist Apprentice tapes?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Possible that what they are really looking for is payments to Mark Burnett regarding the rumored-to-exist Apprentice tapes?

Maybe, but my understanding was that Burnett was threatening massive lawsuits if anyone leaked them. Seems redundant to have Cohen attempt to keep them hidden.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure! It also created a massive terrorist organization that has dragged the US into a 17-year war. So...yay!

Of course, but that's like saying the Allies didn't win WWI because the Nazis took over Germany 15 years later.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I mean, really - if you want to increase their influence and degrade ours, having us leave is hugely preferable to having us stay. 

I have serious doubts about this strategically.  If we pull out, Assad can stabilize his regime.  If he can do that, he will have less of a need to rely on Iranian or Russian influence.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You think Israel would be particularly comfortable with the US fighting a war right next to them?

I think Israel would be much happier with the US having skin in the game in Syria than the black hole it is right now.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My understanding is that one of the reasons that Obama didn't intercede directly in Syria was because Israel said 'no'. 

Obama didn't directly intercede because it would've been dumb to do so.  I don't think it had anything to do with Israel's opinion on the matter, especially considering Obama's relationship with Bibi.

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Turkey is able to go and kill a lot of Kurds that they've wanted to kill for a while. If we invade Syria that would make that significantly harder to do, as the US doesn't really tend to like other countries flying in their controlled airspace. Refugees would continue to stream into Turkey, probably a lot more than before. 

Um, k.  Yeah, obviously the Turks wouldn't like us invading Syria, but they can still kill Syrian Kurds without airspace considering the proximity.

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Making Iran more likely to commit even more is also not going to make them happy. 

This is just wrong.  The more involvement we have in the region means more conflict between the US and Iran, which means more buffer and protection for Israel.  If we completely pull out of Syria, Israel has a very hostile regime as a neighbor and Iran is emboldened.

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Putin might not be stupid, but he does have a habit of pushing harder and harder in what he can do, and Assad may be stupid (or at least malignant).

I think Putin pushes limits to test his enemies' resolve.  And so far, it's worked like gangbusters.

[Rippounet]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think they want the US in Syria though. The best way to make that not happen is to, ya know, not provoke us - especially right after the POTUS says 'we are going to get out of Syria real soon'. I mean, really - if you want to increase their influence and degrade ours, having us leave is hugely preferable to having us stay.

This makes me wonder... Why did Assad authorize the use of chemical weapons? Over-confidence? Plain stupidity or cruelty? Or was he trying to obtain something from Russia?
Maybe I'm over-simplifying, but it seems to me most actors were content with a de-escalation of tensions in Syria (well, with the slaughter of the last rebels that is). This latest development was probably unwelcome for most, wasn't it?

[Kalbear]

Well, last year people wondered the same thing, and the answer last year was that simply Assad didn't have the regular capacity at the time to attack the rebel base, but he could do it with chemical weapons. Chances are good something similar would be here - that they wanted to strike at a certain time, couldn't with traditional weapons for whatever reason ,and chose to use what they had while they could. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe, but my understanding was that Burnett was threatening massive lawsuits if anyone leaked them. Seems redundant to have Cohen attempt to keep them hidden.

Right, and maybe there is a question as to whether he was paid to do so?  I just wonder if there is something there.  Who knows.  I will say I know the guy who authorized the Cohen warrants.  Stand up dude.  Based on my knowledge of him he would have been really, really, really careful.