CUBAREY

Members
  • Content count

    10354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CUBAREY

  • Birthday January 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Some where within the space-time continuom
  1. Russia probe

    "No, not basically. He either did or he did not. He did not. It's not what he said." Actually yes he did, but it was after they were known to have already of hacked HRC and DNC. He also said it as a thorw away line, obviously suggesting that the media could not ignore HRC's transgressions if the Russinas (thorough wilikeaks published them for all the world to see). "I thought only China was known to have hacked her email server? Regardless since it's known the CIA has developed technology which can make a hacking look like it's from anyone that sort of data is now totally unreliable." The actualu identity of those who hacked her server has never been actually disclosed. Moreover, the reports that have come out suggest that she was hacked by multiple parties likely acting for several foreign governments. China is known to have the capablity to hack servers and have been caught at it before so it's reasonable to presume that they were one of the parties that hacked HRC's servers, but the same is true for the Russians, indeed both the North Koreans and even the Israeli's are known to have the ability and the reasons to want to hack HRC's servers. And those countries are not the only ones who would have the ability or reasons to want to hack her servers. "Whether because of him or not is unknown and irrelevant." " Her email server was hacked before the election even took place iirc." Her servers would have been hacked while she was Secretary of State years before either sher or Trump ever declared their intent to run for the Presidency. Also its quite relevant whether the Russians (or others for that fact) hacked her servers and later the DNC for their own national interests not associated with Trump or whether they acted specifically aid his Presidential campaign. It's Nolder's inability to concede any point which makes his overall arguements less then useful to my way of thinking. THe unwillingness to concede uniportatnt or easily explainable points makes his defense of Trump seem based not on a rationale explaination of the facts but as a knee jerk ideological response that one need not bother refuting.
  2. The War on Terror

    "I think that when measured against the causualties and cost of the Iraq war, the cost of limited intervention of the Libyan and Syrian operations were comparitively successful. " At least 10 European countries now ban or restrict Muslim veils or other religiously required clothing. Hundreds took to the streets of Copenhagen on Wednesday to protest the new ban on wearing face veils - or the niqab - in public. Activists have said they intend to continue protesting the ban, and Muslim women who wear the niqab have vowed to defy it. The new measure, which came into force on Wednesday, gives police the power to issue on-the-spot fines to people who cover their faces in public without a "recognisable purpose". Offenders can be fined 1,000 kroner ($157) on the first three occasions, rising to 10,000 kroner ($1,570) for a fourth offence. Guidance issued to police says officers can arrest people for refusing to comply with the law if they consider it necessary, but that police should "proceed as gently and considerately as the situation allows". Members of the Danish parliament justified the law as a means towards safeguarding the "democratic" and "secular" values of Denmark. While opposition continues to mount against Denmark's ban on the face veil, the Scandinavian nation joins a host of other European countries that have restricted religious attire for Muslim women. France Since April 2011, France has banned face coverings, including the burqa and niqab. Women found in violation of the ban are fined 150 euros. In 2016, a ban on burkinis, full-body swimsuits, by mayors in the French Riviera caused global outrage. It was later lifted after a legal challenge in the town of Villeneuve-Loubet. France's top administrative court ruled that the ban "breached fundamental freedoms". Belgium Belgium banned face veils, including the niqab and burqa, in July 2011. Women in violation of the ban can be jailed for up to seven days or pay a 137.5 euro fine. Russia Hijab headscarves were banned in public school in the region of Stavropol, in the southwest of the country. The controversial measure was upheld by the Supreme Court in July 2013. In February 2015, Russia's Supreme Court also ruled to uphold a hijab ban in schools in the Republic of Mordovia. Italy In the northeastern region of Lombardy, officials imposed a ban on entering public buildings and hospitals with a covered face, which includes the burqa and niqab, in December 2015. Switzerland In the southern Italian-speaking region of Ticino, the full face veil was banned in 2016; offenders can be fined up to 9,200 euros. In June 2018, a campaign for a ballot proposing a nationwide ban on facial coverings in public gathered 100,000 votes, prompting a binding referendum expected later this year under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy. Bulgaria Bulgaria’s parliament banned face veils in public in October 2016. Individuals who break this ban face a fine of 1,500 levs ($1,115). Germany In 2017, the German parliament approved a ban on face veils, including the niqab and burqa, for women who work in the civil service, judiciary, and military. This was followed by a prohibition of full-face veils in schools, polling stations, universities, and government offices, instigated by the southern state of Bavaria. German teachers are also banned from wearing headscarves in eight of Germany's 16 states. In 2015, the constitutional court struck down a blanket ban on the hijab for teachers in public schools. Austria The “anti-face-veiling act” came into force in October 2017, which prohibited full-face veils, including the niqab and burqa, in public places. Violations are punishable by a fine of up to 150 euros. The majority of warnings were issued against people covering their faces with scarves, masks and animal costumes. The Netherlands In June 2018, the Dutch Upper House of Parliament passed a law banning face coverings, including the burqa and niqab, in public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport and government buildings. Norway In June 2018, Norway’s parliament voted to ban the burqa in schools, nurseries and universities. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/these-countries-have-banned-clothing-particular-muslim-women-827919477 I do not necessarily agree with the ban (at least I would require that face coverings and such could not be used in Drivers licenses Passports and such and that the authorities have every right to request that the veils be removed in situations like entry into the country or lawful stops of vehicles where identifying the identity of the person would override the right to modesty.) but the notion that the Us would be an outlier in the West in enacting such a ban is rediculous.
  3. Russia probe

    Well since his comment was as a response to a question of what he thought about the Rissuans haching the DNC logic, sans time machines, would indicate that the Russians did not hack HRC or the DNC because of the comment. Now I would certainly agree that the hacks were meant to hurt HRC but as in that time everyone believed she wuold certainly be the next President the intent was not to help Trump in the election but to hurt the credability of the next President both domesticly and internationally.
  4. The War on Terror

    "The policy of regime change of the Bush administration. " Exactly what was the Obama policy in Libya if not regime change. Also at least the Bush Administration nievely thought it could create a liberal democracy ala Minnesota, or possibly Spain or Belgium in Iraq and actually tried to create one. The Obama Administration simply washed its hands of Libya once Kadafi was dead. "You are correct in saying that of the at least 7 countries in which we have committed serious resources, none of the 4(5) in which we have engaged in, or support kentic regime change have turned out well for the people of those countries." Would one of those countries include Ukraine where the Obama Administration and it's European allies manufactured a que against the democraticly elected leader because he choose to accept economicly aligning Ukraine with Russia instead of the EU (based on the fact that the Russians offered a better deal)? "I think that when measured against the causualties and cost of the Iraq war, the cost of limited intervention of the Libyan and Syrian operations were comparitively successful. " Well let's see, as a proportion of the population the number of dead Iraqis is about the same as the number of dead Libyans. Also today Iraqi is a semi stable state where the remnants of the Caliphate and Sunni terrorism is being slowly eradicated while Lybia is a failed state that is a haven to every sort of radical Islamist group. True, Iraq haas close ties with Iran and is not a liberal democracy but the conditions in Iraq are a hell of a lot better then those in Libya. As for Syria, do you really believe it's in anyway a succes? I do not know exactly the parameters of how you measure things, but the fact is that we egged on the Syrian opposition to revolt and then did almost absolutely nothing to help them. Estimates are that 233,000 civilians have lost their lives in Syria so far, 6 million have been "internally displaced" and 5.6 million have left he country and are now considered refugees. Moreover, the fighting continues with the chance that gvernment forces will commit mass murder and other atrocities as they mop up the remnants of the opposition becoming clearer. I will grant that egging on dissidents to revolt and then standing by as they are massacred is a more limited "intervention" then actually sending your own troops to topple the regime and then attempt to stop sectarian violence but I think morally, the actions of the Bush Administration in Iraq are heads and shoulders above those of the Obama Administration in Syria.
  5. Trump FP

    Did I miss something did you mean to cite a particular article or were referencing a specific event?
  6. Trump FP

    I admit to a bias to the same extent you admit that you were biased when you argued that the press was not interested in the Ellison allegations because he was an unknown from Minnesota even after I showed numerous vieos and collections of videos in which Ellsion as the Vice Chairman of the Democratic national committee was interviewed by the Press to give the Democratic spin on various issues.
  7. Russia probe

    Facts also do not rule out that Clinton was a Russian agent all along. As you well know it's almost impossible to prove ageneral allegation. I can prove using the time line that the Russians did not begin hacking the DNC due to Trump's snarky remark. You can prove that the DNC hack did not benefit Clinton. But I cannot disprove that Trump was a Russian agent and you can not prove that Clinton was not a deep cover Russian agent. I think that both allegations are absurd although I think that the allegation as against Clinton is even more absurd although I might be more inclined if the charge was that she was not a Russian agent but a "useful idiot" ( a charge that when alleged against Trump also seems to more in the realm of possibilities).
  8. I think you will find this interesting...

    Well actually surveys and polls suggest that when it comes to academia the 80% number is actually low while when it comes the 70% figure is quite high when measuring the attitudes of rank and file democrats but pretty damn accurate when looking at the leadership.
  9. political meme's & lolz

    "Political logos would have that a republican ad," Which is why I suggested it was a preview of the 2020 Democratic Platform or thinking about it a preview of the Demcratic strategy in 2020.
  10. Russia probe

    Probem of course with that logic that the Russians hacked the DNC and likely hillary's personal server long before Trump suggested that they do so. In fact Trump's obvious snarky remark was based on the fact that the hacks when made public had revealed the unethical ways which the Hillary campaing and the DNC had conspired against the Sanders campaign and that it was the release of the hacks that made it impossible for the liberal media not to report on said facts. That the Russians continued their hacking of the HRC campaign after Trump's snarky retort to a press question in no way shows that the Russians did so at the bequest or in response to Trump.
  11. And I have a well stocked bunker in the Poconos that is disguised as a mountian cabin.
  12. political meme's & lolz

    Is that a MEME or apreview of the 2020 Democratic Platform?
  13. I think you will find this interesting...

    "Who takes strict feminist publications as a serious publication? Feminists and other SJWs and post modernests. Not that they deserve to be taken seriously but since they make up 80% of academia and 70% of the Democratic party I guess we got to make believe that we take them seriously.
  14. The War on Terror

    "Every evangelical religion is far more dangerous to the planet and all her species than any terrorists ever could be' Not true. First I think you are confusing evangelical with fundamentalist. Moreover, almost no christian or Jewish fundamentalist sect really poses any real threat to the survival of anyone. That they think that some people are going to hell and no not want to associate with them is rather different from believing that God wants you to kill everyone who is not a fundamentalist adherent of your religion. Not that that was always the case, but two thousand years of Rabbinical judism and 500 years of the reformation, counterreformation and the enlightenment have fundametally changed both christianity and Judism the same can not be said of Islam. Moreover, since most terrorists today are fundamentalist Muslims, the idea that evangelical religions as a whole present a greater threat then terrorists is nonsensical.
  15. The War on Terror

    "Nor Hindu's wearing Turbans?" Actually Hindu's do not wear turbins, Sikhs do. "The on going force presence in Germany, Japan and Korea were worth in the cold war because we had both transformed those countries to be our allies, and having a physical pressence in the those countries further both our strategic and economic goals." Actually during the Cold War (and in South Korea today) are forces were deployed their to provide a trip wire. Invasion of Germany or Japan by the Russians and South Korea by the South Koreans would instantly mean that the US was directly involved and that American blood would have been spilled during the first hours of the conflict. "What is the long term benifet of occupy afghanistan?" We are not "occupying Afghanistan our troops are deployed in a few strategic bases offering traing and back up to the Afghani forces. The same role that the Bush administration had hoped to provide in Iraq at the end of that administration. "We have become quiet capable, as proved else where, in deploying asymetric warfare to counter asymetric threats. The same question stands for Iraq, Syria and the countries in Afireca in which we have a growing overseas presance. " US forces in Iraq and Syria today are mainly their to rap up the war with the Islamic State that actually fought an old fashioned symmetrical type of war in the Caliphate. Presumably US troops in Syria are also their to counter the conventional threat which the Syrian army presents to the remaining remnants of the resistance. As for American troops in Aftrica almost all of them (outside of advisers in Egypt) are special foces offering training to the local national troops and a force that can handle asymetric welfare when and if that becomes necessary. "Remember the faux-debate last year about whether or not trump called the window of a fallen soldier? Remember how we had no conversation about why they were doing there, why they were there, or why that deployment was never talked about or debated in congress? " The same can be asked of 95% of US foreign deployments at least as far back as the end of the Spanish American war. Deployments by Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative administrations. "I would suggest that the Bush strategy of national building has been proven to not be productive in preventing, in the long term, terrorist threats, or, in the short term, of being worth the price in men and material it costs. " And I would suggest that any gains which that strategy offered was squandered when the Obama Administration did not even attempt to persuade the Iraq's to the extension of time that American troops were allowed to be deployed in Iraq. But I generally agree that attemting to create a liberal democratic state in an Arab-Muslim country without first fundamentally changing the underlying culture is doomed to fail. "Despite very strong liberal opposition to the asytimetric war part of Obama's policy, and republican opposition to the "not war enough" party, I'd argue that it was far more successful in fulfilling it's objectives than Bushes.' Are you really arguing that the conditions in Lybia are actually better then those in Iraq today? Are you seriously arguing that the Obama Administration policy of encouraging the revolt in Syria but offering no real help did anything but insure that up to a million people died and several million left the country as refugges. with over a million ending up in Europe and seriously eroding the unity of the EU? "Further more, I would say that the Saudi/Isreali strategy of pay them all/kill them all - which the Trump white house seems to be embracing - is not as bad as the Bush strategy, not as quiet as the Obama strategy, but still not fully flushed out. " Finally something we agree with, the Trump policy which mirrors the Saudi and Israeli policies is one built on notions of Real Politik. The policy is neither fully flushed out nor its tenants explicitely expressed but I agree it offers a much better channce for succes then the nieve notion that you can force someone to accept liberal democracy without fundamentally altering the underlying culture and the schizophrenic policies of the Obama Administration that wanted to be all things to all people and ended up being a none policy like or appreciated by no one. "Also, and it comes up every year, we need to recind the authorization for military force passed after 9/11. If we are going to engage in a multi-administration, mutli-party, multi-generational miltary conflict against asysemtric threats to the "international order" then we definietly need to do it under the rules and legislation crafted for that mission, not for retaliation after 9/11." I think every Administration imaginable would like to alter part of the authorization passed after 9/11. However, none of them is goind to support recinding the 9/11 powers unless it simultaniously gets a revised mandate to use force in an asymetric world. Since the chances of getting such an authorization passed in the present political climate is nill every American administration is going to opt to keep the present authorization. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.