John Bolton: Russian meddling was an 'act of war': - Polidicks

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/03/30/trumps-national-security-adviser-john-bolton-called-russian-meddling-act-war/471079002/ while it's par for the course considering how much of a crazy warhawk he is, it's interesting to note how much Easy D's new boy hates the everloving shit out of Russia

On the upside, hopefully this means Bolton is fired for insulting Trump's BFFs in Russia, before Bolton is able to do anything stupid with North Korea or Iran.

I wonder how long until Bolton has the "complete confidence of the president"

From what I understand, the only country the US shouldn't be at war with is the US

As yes, the "complete confidence" that the door won't hit them in the ass on their way out, which is the BEST kind.

And Israel, you anti-semitic heathen you

"War on Drugs"

Nvm then

War exists where men believe it does.

Well, he's going to be fired before long talking like this.

War exists when men attack other men.

Maybe longer, But I realized this is same guy under both ex-presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. And I maybe think this same guy to make US to declared War against Hussein's Iraq for alleged "Nuclear Rockets".

Fuck Russia But also haha no fuck you lets not say this, war is literally the last thing anyone should ever want

Only Trump could manage to accidentally hire someone who's tough on Russia but in such an egregiously stupid way that I still hate him.

Absolutely -- but we don't have control over whether or not Russia wishes to war with us; that's on Russia.

Could you have a more narrow understanding of war? War =/= bang bang.

Where'd I say it was exclusively 'bang bang'? If Russia shuts down our electrical grid and blows up our major substations, would that not be an act of war? If not: What would it be?

I'm guessing you've never heard of the Cold War

And if you have heard of it, why are you asserting that I have a narrow understanding of war?

what is this philosophical bullshit you commie

Earlier this month, Russia attempted to poison and kill an ex-Russian intelligence officer and his daughter on UK soil, also poisoning a local police officer. Earlier this year, a Russian mercenary organization attacked US soldiers in Syria. Last year, Russia spread disinformation propaganda to US citizens in a successful attempt to undermine our elections. In 2014, Russia shot down a passenger plane and killed 298 civilians, including an American citizen. In 2006, Russia poisoned and assassinated a defected agent in the UK. Not to mention the number of times they've buzzed and threatened military planes, flown military jets into sovereign territory without permission, hacked political targets in Germany, Georgia, Armenia, and basically everywhere else... Not to mention fucking invading Crimea. Russia's oligarchs need to be kicked in the fucking dick for being murderous rampaging cunts. We already seized Putin's assets in the West through the Magnitsky Act - let's double down and block the rest of the oligarchs. Cut them off financially, blockade their communications to the West, eliminate European dependency on Russian energy, and see how long they'll be able to stand.

Not just spreading disinformation propaganda to undermine the debate surrounding the elections but attacking our voter roll systems and at the very least gaining access to them in an attempt to undermine the elections themselves.

The reason my responses are short is because you're managing to write paragraphs without making any new points. You're saying a whole lot of nothing and a just a bunch of fluff. War isn't just armed conflict. There are different types of war, such is ideological warfare and cyber warfare, just to name a few. Sorry, this might upset you, but not everyone subscribes to your narrow definition of war. As for "demonstrate I've never heard of the Cold War" - I'm not sure why you'd interpret this literally and not just as me making a point about the broader nature of war. I guess misunderstanding things is something of a talent of yours.

And making bold claims while never providing evidence of those claims is the only talent of yours I've seen so far; unless we're going to count 'thinks they've read a user's posts but hasn't' as a talent.

I literally provided examples of warfare without armed conflict...

And provided no examples of where I've stated anything that you've stated I stated or hold the positions you claim I hold. I also literally provided examples of warfare without armed conflict, despite your assertions that I 'don't know what war that isn't armed conflict is'. Prove your claims or drop them.

The Cold War was entirely ideological warfare. If you can't think of any examples of cyber warfare, then you should read the news (Russian, NK cyber attacks on the US). God forbid you might actually have to join the dots.

I provided examples. God forbid you read my posts.

I do believe that the Cold War was entirely ideological. It's almost as if a good portion of history is interpretation too, and I believe that the Cold War was an entirely ideological opposition of the communist East vs the Capitalist West. This is hardly a contentious claim. Sure, they had proxy battles, but the crux of the war for the actual warring nations was ideological and driven by ideology. I have done my research into the Cold War and studied it as part of my degree. I have full confidence in my claims. I have provided evidence for my claims that you've consistently chosen to ignore for whatever reason. My point was that war is not conventional in the way you initially claimed it is and that the ultimate point that war only exists if people believe it does is ultimately correct. You tried to nullify this assertion by narrowing the definition of war down to conventional warfare which is an overly traditional and dated interpretation of war, as especially today there are non-conventional forms of warfare such as cyber warfare, as well as traditional forms of warfare, such as ideological and psychological warfare (e.g. propaganda, war of the flea) that clearly contradict your definition.

Isn't the Trump admin. suppose to deny meddling ?