Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 108
  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    "more likely... " Yea that is a piece of baseless bias
    Not my piece...
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's not a fact, that's some nonsense you made up.

    ---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------



    More likely this was put through by the adults in the room due to the distinct possibility that Trump is compromised. They said as much..."he might tell foreign officials about it, carelessly or otherwise"
    Not something I made up. It came right out of the Slate piece and I quoted it. So, your "more likely" claim is really what has been made up. Either support your claim that the Slate story got it wrong or concede.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not something I made up. It came right out of the Slate piece and I quoted it. So, your "more likely" claim is really what has been made up. Either support your claim that the Slate story got it wrong or concede.
    Nowhere in that piece does it say Obama would not act - rather that he had it under control (as opposed to Putin having it under control)

    "Before then, such operations—even tactical operations on the battlefield—had to be personally approved by the president." your source

    That's some made-up garbage by you.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Nowhere in that piece does it say Obama would not act - rather that he had it under control (as opposed to Putin having it under control)

    "Before then, such operations—even tactical operations on the battlefield—had to be personally approved by the president." your source

    That's some made-up garbage by you.
    From the Slate article:
    "One consequence is that Cyber Command now feels less constrained about going on the offensive. And indeed, the Times reports—and my own sources confirm—the command has stepped up cyberoffensive operations, in frequency and scale."
    If Cyber Command now feels less constrained, then by inductive reasoning we can conclude that under Obama it felt more constrained than it does now under Trump. Then by inference, we can conclude that it didn't feel like Obama had it under control or was acting as it felt was required (i.e. it felt constrained). The point I was making, am making, is that if Trump was in Putin's pocket, then why would he give Cyber Command additional authority and freedom? So, please, if you want to disagree with the facts or my conclusion, feel free. Dismissing my argument as garbage simply points out the holes in your own argumentation. Namely, you don't have a proper rebuttal to counter the argument I am positing.

    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. #65
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Thanks for the retreat:

    "The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia."

    That's not a fact. Certainly not one that the Slate article pointed out. It's something you made up or inferred.

    ---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The point I was making, am making, is that if Trump was in Putin's pocket, then why would he give Cyber Command additional authority and freedom?
    Don't know. Did they ask for it? Would you act on Donald's orders concerning Russia without covering your ass? I wouldn't do anything he says without having it in triplicate, audio and video recorded, and running it by any number of attorneys. It's one of the reasons he can't get anyone to work for him and there are so many "acting" officials.

    Unless you like jail.

    Best he's not involved, but, a sad example of commander in chief.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Thanks for the retreat:

    "The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia."

    That's not a fact. Certainly not one that the Slate article pointed out. It's something you made up or inferred.

    ---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 PM ----------



    Don't know. Did they ask for it? Would you act on Donald's orders concerning Russia without covering your ass? I wouldn't do anything he says without having it in triplicate, audio and video recorded, and running it by any number of attorneys. It's one of the reasons he can't get anyone to work for him and there are so many "acting" officials.

    Unless you like jail.

    Best he's not involved, but, a sad example of commander in chief.
    Inference is a logical conclusion. It is not 'made up' as you are stating. Huge difference. It is a conclusion based on facts.

    The point, again, is that Trump gave them the authority to do what they needed to do. That is a fact. Under Obama, they were constrained. Now, less constrained. Fact. These facts do not align with your narrative.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  8. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Under Obama, they were constrained. Now, less constrained. Fact. These facts do not align with your narrative.
    If by less constrained you me a little less bureaucracy, sure, I'd agree to that.

    ---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The point, again, is that Trump gave them the authority to do what they needed to do.
    You're implying that under Obama they didn't, couldn't or wouldn't be able to do what they needed to do. That is unsupported. Supported please {challenge thingy}

    "The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia." Support this too. {challenge thingy}
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #68
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    If by less constrained you me a little less bureaucracy, sure, I'd agree to that.

    ---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ----------



    You're implying that under Obama they didn't, couldn't or wouldn't be able to do what they needed to do. That is unsupported. Supported please {challenge thingy}

    "The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia." Support this too. {challenge thingy}
    Can you give me an example where you'd describe yourself as constrained which does not include being prevented from performing an action you'd like, or feel is necessary, to perform? What I mean is that the definition of constrain is commonly as follows:
    "compel or force (someone) to follow a particular course of action."

    If Cyber Command felt free to do what the felt they needed to do with regards to Russia, then why would they describe their relationship with Obama as constrained? You are asking me to support something which is supported by the statement itself. It is implicitly supported by the use of the word constrained. Again, just to be clear, implicit does not mean I am making an assumption, it is a logical conclusion which follows from the premises.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Can you give me an example where you'd describe yourself as constrained which does not include being prevented from performing an action you'd like, or feel is necessary, to perform? What I mean is that the definition of constrain is commonly as follows:
    "compel or force (someone) to follow a particular course of action."

    If Cyber Command felt free to do what the felt they needed to do with regards to Russia, then why would they describe their relationship with Obama as constrained? You are asking me to support something which is supported by the statement itself. It is implicitly supported by the use of the word constrained. Again, just to be clear, implicit does not mean I am making an assumption, it is a logical conclusion which follows from the premises.
    Sure, they had to run it passed the boss first. That'd be being a well informed and involved commander.

    And that's the point. The military isn't free to do what it wants. For a certain type of person - usually on your side (always of your type) - this usually sticks in the craw.


    Last edited by Squatch347; July 1st, 2019 at 07:22 AM. Reason: Please use professional language.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #70
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure, they had to run it passed the boss first. That'd be being a well informed and involved commander.

    And that's the point. The military isn't free to do what it wants. For a certain type of person - usually on your side (always of your type) - this usually sticks in the craw.
    And this is a rebuttal to what exactly? I'll ignore the ignorant remark and focus on the argument.

    I am NOT claiming the military should be free to do whatever it wants. I am not arguing that Obama's approach is qualitatively better or worse than Trump's approach. I am arguing that Trump has provided the Cyber Command more freedom to go on the offensive against Russia than was provided for under Obama which is contrary to your OP. In logic, if there is a contradiction, check your premises.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  12. #71
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Gents, "I won" is not substantive to the thread. Please ensure your posts positively contribute to moving the discussion forward.




    Uggh, as someone who actually understands the policies and legal options of offensive cyber actions, reading through the last two pages has been painful.

    Ok, to move the discussion forward, here is the current position of the thread. Cowboy's initial claim in the OP was, essentially, that the Trump Administration has done nothing to little to counter Russian cyber attacks against the U.S.

    Ibelsd provided a rebuttal, arguing that the more aggressive posture U.S. Cybercommand has with its more active retaliation against Russian interests undermines the OP.

    There was some back and forth on whether this was a valid inference.
    Ruling: It is. Devolving of command authorities to subordinate commands is, by definition, granting them more authority to act. IE it is posturing U.S. assets to have the freedom to respond to foreign attacks.

    Now, there is a lot of other tangential references in the posts that will only lead to rabbit holes, so please focus on the core issue. Cowboy, the ball is in your court. How does this fact, as supported by Ibelsd square with your OP?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #72
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I agree. He refuses to concede he changed his position. Could you review please?

    I did, please read the rest of the post.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Ibelsd provided a rebuttal, arguing that the more aggressive posture U.S. Cybercommand has with its more active retaliation against Russian interests undermines the OP.
    [/COLOR]
    No.

    We haven't even gotten that far yet. The sticking part is:

    "The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia."

    is different from:

    "I am arguing that Trump has provided the Cyber Command more freedom to go on the offensive against Russia than was provided for under Obama which is contrary to your OP."

    The original statement was unsupported and he changed it. Which is fine. I may choose to rebut the new statement. I might not. I'm working on something else right now.


    (I'd appreciate you didn't act as moderator if you are going to come in as an expert on cybercommand - which I don't believe is necessary)
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #74
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    No.

    We haven't even gotten that far yet. The sticking part is:

    "The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia."

    is different from:

    "I am arguing that Trump has provided the Cyber Command more freedom to go on the offensive against Russia than was provided for under Obama which is contrary to your OP."

    The original statement was unsupported and he changed it. Which is fine. I may choose to rebut the new statement. I might not. I'm working on something else right now.


    (I'd appreciate you didn't act as moderator if you are going to come in as an expert on cybercommand - which I don't believe is necessary)
    I clarified my argument. Nothing changed. Like Squatch side, ball is in your court.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #75
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The sticking part is:

    "The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia."

    is different from:

    "I am arguing that Trump has provided the Cyber Command more freedom to go on the offensive against Russia than was provided for under Obama which is contrary to your OP."

    The original statement was unsupported and he changed it.

    This has two separate points. One is that the two sentences are materially different. That doesn't appear to be the case. The essence of the claim remains the same; President Trump granted more leeway to Cybercommand to conduct offensive operations against Russia than President Obama did.

    The second point is whether that is supported. In post 63 you cite the adjacent text to that claim, that control had previously been more centralized. In response, Ibelsd added a reference to Cybercommand's authorities being less constrained. Taken in toto (and given that this was the thrust of the Slate piece more generally), I find that that the central claim being made by Ibelsd is supported.


    Now, I think the sticking point is that you are reading Ibelsd's first quote as saying that President Obama never allowed Cybercommand to conduct offensive operations against Russia. The context of Ibelsd's writing indicates to me that that is not what he meant, but we can clear that up right now as not being an active point in thread. However, you want to take it Ibelsd has clarified that point (second quote) as to what he meant. The fact that Cybercommand didn't exist as a combatant command until 2018 would make that claim a non sequitor anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    (I'd appreciate you didn't act as moderator if you are going to come in as an expert on cybercommand - which I don't believe is necessary)
    You'll notice that I wrote that in purple, not red.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #76
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The fact that Cybercommand didn't exist as a combatant command until 2018 would make that claim a non sequitor anyway. .
    I accept your expertise on the subject which effectively retracts his statement - that Obama would not allow offensive action to be taken against Russia since that was not possible through this channel. Further, no support has been provided that had that channel existed during Obama's reign he wouldn't have allowed it to take action against Russia.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #77
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I accept your expertise on the subject which effectively retracts his statement - that Obama would not allow offensive action to be taken against Russia since that was not possible through this channel. Further, no support has been provided that had that channel existed during Obama's reign he wouldn't have allowed it to take action against Russia.

    No, this is a bad faith reading of my point. Because Cybercommand didn't exist as a combatant command does not mean a) it didn't exist and/or b) that the tools to engage in those actions didn't exist. The fact that it was constrained under other agencies rather than being a combatant command shows the opposite of your argument.


    The finding remains that this claim is supported: "President Trump granted more leeway to Cybercommand to conduct offensive operations against Russia than President Obama did. "
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #78
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    No, this is a bad faith reading of my point. Because Cybercommand didn't exist as a combatant command does not mean a) it didn't exist and/or b) that the tools to engage in those actions didn't exist. The fact that it was constrained under other agencies rather than being a combatant command shows the opposite of your argument.


    The finding remains that this claim is supported: "President Trump granted more leeway to Cybercommand to conduct offensive operations against Russia than President Obama did. "
    I'll accept all of that - except the bad faith reading part. That's just silly. I went on the information you presented.

    ALL of which still does not support the original comment ""The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia."

    Which was retracted and reposted in a altered form. The newly changed statement is tentatively accepted.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #79
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'll accept all of that - except the bad faith reading part. That's just silly. I went on the information you presented.
    Apologies. Given that the plain text reading of my statement was not what you inferred, I had assumed that you had interpreted it ito suit yourself. Apparently you didn't understand what was being said. Now that that is corrected;

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    ALL of which still does not support the original comment ""The fact is that he just gave the cyber command agency the freedom to do what Obama would not allow them to do, namely take offensive action against Russia."

    Which was retracted and reposted in a altered form. The newly changed statement is tentatively accepted.
    Please note the red text. This is not Squatch's personal opinion (as the black text above is). This is an official ruling. The finding remains that this claim is supported: "President Trump granted more leeway to Cybercommand to conduct offensive operations against Russia than President Obama did. "

    You have two choices at this point. Present a cogent argument in response to that supported statement or accept it as the final position of the thread.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #80
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347
    Please note the red text. This is not Squatch's personal opinion (as the black text above is). This is an official ruling. The finding remains that this claim is supported: "President Trump granted more leeway to Cybercommand to conduct offensive operations against Russia than President Obama did. "

    You have two choices at this point. Present a cogent argument in response to that supported statement or accept it as the final position of the thread.
    Right, as I said, I've tentatively accepted the newly changed statement in replacement of the original which is retracted.

    Now we can move on as to why that had to happen as explained in the article.


    As I noted in the edit summary. Don't play games with staff. You know full well that I already ruled those two comments were functionally the same. If you continue to push back in this manner there will be consequences. Debate the thread, stop playing games.


    So when the first incident was reported (under Obama) there was an investigation and heads rolled:

    "Sanger’s Stuxnet story sparked a vast FBI investigation, which led to the indictment and prosecution of a four-star general and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was later pardoned by Obama."



    "There’s another disturbing development in cyberwar: The whole enterprise has slipped out of the oversight and control of our political leaders. Last summer, President Donald Trump signed a classified directive giving U.S. Cyber Command leeway to mount cyberoffensive operations at its own initiative. Before then, such operations—even tactical operations on the battlefield—had to be personally approved by the president."

    "The Times reports that Donald Trump wasn’t even fully briefed on the hacking of Russia’s power grid, in part because officials feared that he might “countermand” the order—suggesting the hack was in place before they told Trump anything about it—and that he might tell foreign officials about it, carelessly or otherwise. Whatever the reason, Trump wasn’t fully briefed because he didn’t have to be."

    Further:

    "A fair inference is that senior U.S officials wanted this new story to be published—wanted the Russians and other adversaries to know what we’re doing and to calculate the damage we could inflict on their power grids and other systems if we wanted. The hope, presumably, is that the disclosure serves as a deterrent—if the Russians launch a cyberattack on our critical infrastructure, we can launch an attack on theirs."

    All quotes are from the Times article with emphasis mine.

    Terrifying that civilian control has had to be relinquished because the tweeter-in-chief cannot be trusted - not only with specific operations but also with the intelligence strategy:

    "In response to the disclosure, Trump tweeted that the Times had committed “a virtual act of Treason.” However, at one point in his story, Sanger writes, “Officials at the National Security Council declined to comment but said they had no national security concerns about the details” of his reporting."
    Last edited by Squatch347; July 17th, 2019 at 06:35 AM. Reason: Don't play games. I already ruled that those statements were content equivalent.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Man CAN Refuse Forced Fatherhood
    By Scarlett44 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: March 11th, 2014, 03:15 PM
  2. For those who defend your beloved GOP
    By Ibelsd in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 10:42 PM
  3. Defend the Monster
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2006, 07:12 AM
  4. Personal Attacks Enforcement
    By Apokalupsis in forum Announcements
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2005, 02:33 PM
  5. Relious freedom to refuse medical treatment for children
    By tinkerbell in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 15th, 2004, 03:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •