Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Damn, whiny Democrats!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccain-graham-call-for-greater-sanctions-against-russia/ar-BBy2HL1?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

 Breotan wrote:
Apparently some people are trying to convince Hillary to run for Mayor of New York.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-state-mind-speculation-mounts-164700428.html

My question is, why? Isn't Mayor, even of New York, a big step down from being a former Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate?

Keep in mind, Trump lives in NYC. Nothing will piss him off more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She is actually incredibly popular in NYC (and NY in general). I don't think she will, but if she did, I think she's be a shoe-in.

People in politics are often too old.
Holds for Trump and HC.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Apparently some people are trying to convince Hillary to run for Mayor of New York.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-state-mind-speculation-mounts-164700428.html

My question is, why? Isn't Mayor, even of New York, a big step down from being a former Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate?

Keep in mind, Trump lives in NYC. Nothing will piss him off more.

That would be AWESOME!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She is actually incredibly popular in NYC (and NY in general). I don't think she will, but if she did, I think she's be a shoe-in.

It is nice that she is popular there but it doesn't really answer the question of whether she originally was from there or moved there because there was going to be a senate seat opening up.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She is actually incredibly popular in NYC (and NY in general). I don't think she will, but if she did, I think she's be a shoe-in.

It is nice that she is popular there but it doesn't really answer the question of whether she originally was from there or moved there because there was going to be a senate seat opening up.

Is that something unusual in American politics? Here in the UK it's pretty common for the political parties to parachute in their candidates into constituencies, especially if they're grooming them for for the front-bench and a safe seat is available.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She is actually incredibly popular in NYC (and NY in general). I don't think she will, but if she did, I think she's be a shoe-in.

It is nice that she is popular there but it doesn't really answer the question of whether she originally was from there or moved there because there was going to be a senate seat opening up.

She was raised in Chicago and of course, lived in Arkansas.

She moved to NY after Bill's presidency to establish residency.

It's called carpetbagging... it happens.

Trump's name is dirt in NYC, of course, despite his having lived there all his life. Or maybe it's because he's lived there all his life.

I think it is generally frowned upon a bit to move/live somewhere solely for the purpose of getting a political position in that area but it isn't everything, and this isn't the first or only time it has happened.

It isn't a question of whether the person is good or bad, or even popular, but if that is what happened.

The only positive is that she stayed there even after no longer being a Senator. She lived in Arkansas when married to Bill for his "job", then moved to DC for 8 years for his "job". Aside from her "job" being politics, there really isn't anything unusual about moving somewhere for a new job. As far as marriage goes, she followed him for his work, then it was her turn to move for work.

I feel like people are reading things into the question.

Instead of "yes she moved there for a job" I get "there is nothing wrong with moving somewhere for a job" when it wasn't ever questioned whether it was ok to move for a job or not. It has gone from a simple question to a bizarre tangent.

Obliviously this is Frazzled's fault.

If Clinton stands for mayor and the people don't want her, they might vote against her??

 Ahtman wrote:
I think it is generally frowned upon a bit to move/live somewhere solely for the purpose of getting a political position in that area but it isn't everything, and this isn't the first or only time it has happened.

It isn't a question of whether the person is good or bad, or even popular, but if that is what happened.

Generally... yes...

But, as popular HRC is in NY AND she certainly qualified:
1) 30 years old;
2) a U.S. citizen for nine years; and
3) "an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." The Supreme Court has ruled that the states must accept as an "inhabitant" anyone who has lived in the state for 30 days before the election.

She really didn't have any issues "moving" there to run for a Senate seat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Clinton stands for mayor and the people don't want her, they might vote against her??

Or maybe they won't vote at all thereby allowing a fool to get the position. That would never happen though.

Maybe Trump would resign to run against her again?

There's really no reason why the President of the United States couldn't also be the Mayor of New York at the same time. Think of the savings on administrative staff alone!

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Damn, whiny Democrats!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mccain-graham-call-for-greater-sanctions-against-russia/ar-BBy2HL1?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

In response to an earlier reply of yours, let me say I'm neutral on this.

I'm no GOP supporter. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the GOP is not worth a bucket of horsegak!

I'm well aware of the damage Richard Nixon did to Cambodia, which ushered in the Khmer Rouge

and the mess GW Bush and Tony Blair made in Iraq

From where I'm standing, yes, the GOP are moaning about Russian hacking, but to me, the Democrats are moaning louder, trying to convince us that Russian hacking was the sole reason for Clinton's defeat when IMO it was not...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 plastictrees wrote:
There's really no reason why the President of the United States couldn't also be the Mayor of New York at the same time. Think of the savings on administrative staff alone!

I'm probably wrong, but I'm sure there's something in the constitution that stops any President from being a judge, or mayor, or whatever, whilst holding the office of President.

On a lighter note -

If we have to pay attention to his tweets, they might as well be read in the appropriate voices.

Which voice actor is next?!

Interesting story on the whole "BLM is evil" push by the right.
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/05/508018599/push-to-transfer-federal-lands-to-states-has-sportsmen-on-edge


I think what a lot of people don't understand that this land isn't going to be sold to people like Bundy to trash, these cash-strapped state govenrments are going to sell them to oil, gas, lumber, and mining companies to the highest bidder. And they'll just trash the land, and leave it ruined when they are done.

Ironically it might be none other than the Trumps who save it from the republican party (according the article).

 Cothonian wrote:
Could we stop with the insults?

Nope, you don't get to pretend to be insulted and thereby end a line of conversation. Trump's debate performances were incredibly terrible, his knowledge and insight in to US politics was below most 2am drunken bar conversations. That such a woeful showing didn't seem to matter to the American public is something that needs to be discussed.

If you are offended that some people are talking about why Americans voted for the obviously incompetent idiot, then the problem might be with who you supported in the election, not with people talking about it.

In regards to the ethics committee. I always thought that it was weird that our government could have an office that could decide, on its own without oversight, what is and is not "ethical."

Good thing that isn't slightly true. Guidelines are expressly stated, and the operatives in the agency are overseen by an independent board of governance.

Thus, that is why I am fine with calls for the ethics committee to be disbanded. I'd rather leave investigations to the many law enforcement agencies currently available. Law enforcement at least operates based on set guidelines, and everything they do is consistently under strict scrutiny. Some lawmaker does something bad, let the FBI take them down. That's what they're there for.

There are many breaches of ethics that aren't criminal. A major part of non-criminal investigations like this is you set a standard of behaviour that stops things sprialing in to criminal behaviour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The issue with a lack of modern hospitals located in sparsely populated rural areas is more about basic economics that's the same in every country than all of the inherent flaws in the healthcare system. People in rural counties in VA and any other state are underserved because nobody is going to build a hospital or dentists office or other healthcare provider in a sparsely populated rural area where most people have a low income, usually in the form of a fixed income from the govt.

Sort of. Having disbursed populations in rural areas certainly makes it harder to provide people with healthcare, and it makes what healthcare you do provide much more expensive. But it is far from an insurmountable problem, especially not for the provision of the most basic care.

Here in Australia for instance, we have a much smaller population spread across a similarly large geographic area. For people in rural areas there is a reduction in specialists available, but basic stuff and many specialist services are covered. And on top of the facilities there we also bring in additional services, such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, to overcome what tyranny of distance must remain.

However, there are also a lot of people in Australia who are badly underserved by our health system. For instance many aboriginal communities have health problems that look more like South Sudan than a first world nation. These communities are certainly isolated, but no more isolated that many cattle ranches and mining camps. But they sit uncomfortably within the rest of Australian society, and this conflicts continue to make healthcare fail despite efforts from both sides.

So it should be clear that the primary problem is not so much with distance but with how with the system itself works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
No, my issue is people not being motivated to better themselves.

You're looking at just one side of the coin. The other side of motivation is opportunity. One big advantage to a healthy safety net is that it gives people better opportunities to advance themselves. When a person has to work 60 odd hours to support themselves, they are unlikely to study and improve their skill set. When a person thinking of starting a business faces actual starvation if their business fails, they are more likely to stay working in a deadend job.

In contrast, I know of more than a few people in my area right now (Lafayette, IN) that will NOT look for work as they are getting a better deal sponging off the system.

Social welfare is set to pay pretty close to the bare minimum for a very basic standard of living. When that amount of pay is better than working, it seems to me the solution shouldn't come from making welfare payments worse, but from making jobs pay better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Only a fool would think that the leaking of everything didn't change votes

Trump mentioned the wikileaks in just about every every campaign speech after the leaks. Now after the campaign he tries to claim the leaks didn't matter. For an issue Trump thinks didn't matter, he sure did spend a lot of precious campaign time talking about it over and over again.

Trump, of course, is lying. Of course the hack mattered, probably not as much as the FBI bungling the email scandal, but it still certainly mattered, and in a close election it might have been enough to tip the balance to Trump.

To be honest I actually think Trump is right to insist it didn't impact the result. What else is he supposed to do? Admit that his election was made possible by plotting from foreign powers? Nah, the president must maintain the legitimacy of his own election because the alternative is chaos. For once Trump is lying in the right way.

But of course that doesn't mean anyone here has to believe that, and it's kind of embarrassing that anyone does.



The second part of this, and the more important part, is what the US commits to doing to punish Russia. And in that regard Trump's correct path is pretty simple. It would be quite easy for Trump to say that while Russia's attempt to influence the election played no part in his win, the mere attempt by Russia is a direct attack on US democracy, and requires a massive increase in sanctions against Russia. Played well most of Europe will go along, most of them are happier with a weaker Putin. And hell, it could even build a new standard for how far hacking is allowed to go, and where the line is. Trump won't do that, though, because as people might have already noticed he is the worst possible president you can imagine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
But if it did I would still lay the blame fully on Clinton for running a campaign that left the election so close that these things were able to swing it. If you leave the outcome in the hands of outsiders, then you can't bitch if it bites you in the ass.

On the one hand, I agree that Putin's interference shouldn't let Clinton or anyone else in the Democrats off from losing to Trump. Nor should it let off any of the 60m who voted for Trump. They all need to be held accountable for their screw ups.

But the issue of Putin's interference is what it is. It would be unacceptable if Trump lost in a landslide. The idea that a foreign power could look to interfere in US elections, get caught, and then we'd see people in the US debate whether anything should be done is staggering to me. If you want a democracy you do what it takes to stop other people screwing with it - that just seems obvious to me. As such, the only sensible course of action for this must result in people a couple of years from now looking at an economic wasteland in Russia and saying 'holy crap you do not screw with US democracy'.

 sebster wrote:

In contrast, I know of more than a few people in my area right now (Lafayette, IN) that will NOT look for work as they are getting a better deal sponging off the system.

Social welfare is set to pay pretty close to the bare minimum for a very basic standard of living. When that amount of pay is better than working, it seems to me the solution shouldn't come from making welfare payments worse, but from making jobs pay better.

And that's the root of the problem right there. A minimum wage does nothing to change the underlying mentality of most companies; that they should work their employees as hard as they can for the least amount of pay they can, for as long as they can. And when the employees get fed up with it and call a strike the American public naturally sides with the poor victimized corporation, how DARE those selfish employees demand a fair share of the profits!

 whembly wrote:
Eh... I think that's a cop-out... he won because of geographically wide and uniform movement of a voting group. That's particularly evidenced by the obliteration ol'Blue Wall.

You should read 538's anaylsis. They put the election result down to the failure of registered Democrats to turn out for Clinton. It isn't hard to see how Clinton having Russian hacks on top of the FBI cock up worked to discourage those voters. It doesn't even need to be a direct effect, it could just be that forcing Clinton and her team to endlessly defend those issues stopped them from talking about Trump's countless screw ups, or talking about policy.

Keep in mind that he was filling stadiums to capacity long before wikileak got in the swing of things...

Man we've been over this so many times. Having 15k people turn out in a stadium means nothing when on election day you need 60m at a minimum. And it isn't even a case of getting 15k in every city, as Howard Dean said after his own great rallies turned out to mean nothing in the polls - you start seeing the same faces at every rally.

EDIT: I would say Comey's letter had more impact than anything Russia did.

This is true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
There was a sizable shift that translated into Trump winning... and the states where Congress was on ballot, the GOP kicked ass'ed too.

The GOP lost seats in the House and Senate. They kicked ass all the way to less house and less senate seats.

You might want to argue that for the GOP merely limiting the Democratic gains against the 2010 senate/2014 house results was a win, and that'd be an okayish argument. Except it ignores that most people now vote single party right down the ballot. As such anyone who was discouraged from voting for Clinton didn't show, and so didn't vote DNC down the ballot.

As such, GOP performance down the ballot would be a symptom of a Democratic base discouraged by hacks, FBI feth ups etc, not a counter argument that such things had no effect.

We won't really know for sure, but there are indicators that highlights that the GOP came out to vote.

Sure, because the GOP will turn out to vote like loyal footsoldiers, even when their candidate is the worst candidate in living memory. Whereas the Democratic base, though larger, is much more fickle. The point being, of course, that the Russian leaks and the FBI screw up are some of the reasons that the Democratic base failed to turn out (alongside Clinton having the stage charisma of foot fungus, and the 8 year switcheroo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mario wrote:

Can you fix your quotes. Your post makes it looks like I said the stuff JustTony said, and I really don't want anyone to think that.

Cool post by the way. Lots of great links and information.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.

The US has of course dicked around in other countries elections. Hell, when dicking around hasn't been enough you've organised coups to overthrow democratically elected, popular leaders who wanted to do stuff the US didn't like. I don't think anyone is pretending this kind of thing has never happened before. But it's been big countries dicking with little countries. When big countries have undertaken operations against each other, they've acted with a reserved hand. China hacked the campaigns of both sides in iirc 2004, but didn't release any of the information.

But people should be taking a look at how far this kind of thing could go. There needs to an accepted limit to behaviour before this gets out of control. Consider for instance the Cold War. The US and USSR would arm proxies to fight each other. Sometimes US troops would engage, and the USSR would arm proxies to fight them. When Soviet troops fought, the US armed proxies to fight them. But both sides knew they didn't use their own troops to directly fight the other side, because they knew where that could lead.

Similarly with this, there needs to be an understanding of what kind of hacks we can accept, and what must be considered out of bounds. If it becomes okay to not just spy on other countries but to directly feth with their elections, where does the line on that nonsense get drawn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Actually, it just means we need to expect this in the future and work on stopping it. It's called counter-espionage and it's been around since WWII. I'm more concerned hearing that the Russians got into polling precincts and State agencies than I am about Democrat emails. Emails are a personal security issue and anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to have their dirty laundry aired for everyone to see.

This argument fething sucks because Russia successfully hacked both the DNC and RNC, but only released the DNC emails because they were working against Clinton. There will always be security breaches. You can minimise them, but you can't remove them entirely. If you then let foreign powers make their hacks and choose which leaks to make public, then you will bias your elections to whichever party best toes the policy line favoured by Russia/China/whoever.

EDIT: Oh, it isn't just the Russians doing it. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese, Arabs, and non-government groups like Anonymous are also doing it. Hell, even our friends like England, Germany, and Korea are probably doing it. We need to be more pro-active with our computer security.

China made successful hacks on both parties back in iirc 2004. They didn't release anything because they thought the US was made up of sensible people who'd be angry about having their democracy screwed with, no matter which party it favoured in the short term. Silly Chinese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

There's been a few.

Mohammed Mosaddegh was democratically elected in Iran, but he wanted to nationalise oil. So the US (with the UK) organised a coup.

Jacobo Arbez was democratically to lead in Guatamala, but he wanted minimum wages and universal suffrage, so the US backed rebels in exile to overthrow him.

In Chile Salvador Allende was democratically elected, but he was a socialist so the US backed a military coup (anyone noticing a theme here?).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

There's a very fething obvious difference between a president publicly answering a question on policy, and one using their state intel services to covertly hack and release private party emails.

All this horsegak about Russian hacking is nothing more than a smokescreen...

bs. Clinton could have won this election by 20 million votes and what Putin did would still be unacceptalbe. Or should be unacceptable.

It looks as though 2017 will continue 2016's theme of me constantly thinking 'holy gak this is a thing people actually need to debate'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I never said it wasn't nefarious. I said it was as nefarious as our own machinations. We've been trying to exert influence over elections and govts to further our interests and oppose Russia since the Cold War kicked off decades ago. I was disputing Ahtman's position that this was a serious transgression because we do it on a pretty regular basis, it's naive to think nobody has ever tried to influence our elections before and it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course there's been interference before. The difference is that in the past it's been big kids kicking the little kids. Things are very different when a big kid takes a swing at another big kid. The chance for escalation is much greater, and so the whole thing needs to be taken much more seriously. If it turns out the US is a big kid who happens to be going through a short phase of insanity (a rare medical condition known as Trumpian Incompetencia) and doesn't retaliate, that will actually make the situation worse. Because it means Russia and most everyone else, China, Germany, UK, France, will see no reason not to dick around in other country's elections. And you better believe some of them will retaliate, and retaliate hard.

I don't think we should be happy about Russian involvement but it's not deserving of a level of outrage that questions the legitimacy of the election or demands some kind of severe retaliation from us. It's just international realpolitik, hate the game but don't hate the playa.

Staggering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power?

Continue and expand the economic sanctions already in place, which have already crashed the Russian economy. Holy fething gak how is that even a question.

And Russia would of course not feel forced to do anything about that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And that's the root of the problem right there. A minimum wage does nothing to change the underlying mentality of most companies; that they should work their employees as hard as they can for the least amount of pay they can, for as long as they can. And when the employees get fed up with it and call a strike the American public naturally sides with the poor victimized corporation, how DARE those selfish employees demand a fair share of the profits!

The problem is the mentality you describe is just how business works, and has always worked. If you think there was a golden age where this wasn't true, you should go and read the turn of the century debate about the danger of the new child labour laws.

Minimum wage is a very imperfect solution, of course, but it is a lot more practical than having companies start to pay more than the market requires, or begin company wide profit sharing schemes. There are ways we can push in that direction (Walmart changed their business model a few years ago when they realised paying as little as possible hurt productivity and staff turnover, and moved to a staff retention model), but by and large they will be small potatoes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
And Russia would of course not feel forced to do anything about that.

What? Putin and his oligarch mates just wouldn't be bothered at all when their investments drop to a tenth of their value? Being hit hard in the hip pocket is what led Russia to undertake the action it has.

That was my point. Trying to tear a country apart is going to have consequences and I'd like it if people thought about that before suggesting it be done to Russia.

Tho I suppose that anyone who won't learn or change after Iraq, Libya or Syria is a lost cause.

 sebster wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And that's the root of the problem right there. A minimum wage does nothing to change the underlying mentality of most companies; that they should work their employees as hard as they can for the least amount of pay they can, for as long as they can. And when the employees get fed up with it and call a strike the American public naturally sides with the poor victimized corporation, how DARE those selfish employees demand a fair share of the profits!

The problem is the mentality you describe is just how business works, and has always worked. If you think there was a golden age where this wasn't true, you should go and read the turn of the century debate about the danger of the new child labour laws.

Minimum wage is a very imperfect solution, of course, but it is a lot more practical than having companies start to pay more than the market requires, or begin company wide profit sharing schemes. There are ways we can push in that direction (Walmart changed their business model a few years ago when they realised paying as little as possible hurt productivity and staff turnover, and moved to a staff retention model), but by and large they will be small potatoes.

I did not mean to say it was a new problem (quite the opposite, as you said), only that our solutions do very little to solve it. Plus a lightly humored comment on how the pro-business culture of the US is particularly prone to blaming lower-level employees of a company for being dissatisfied rather than the people who create those conditions.

Glorious Leader has taken important steps to make his feelings on actors known so that he doesn't have to focus on silly unimportant things such as foreign affairs, legislation, or transition of power. He'll let His Pal Putin worry about those things, right now he has to let Meryl Streep know what he thinks.

Rosebuddy wrote:
That was my point. Trying to tear a country apart is going to have consequences and I'd like it if people thought about that before suggesting it be done to Russia.

Hitting a country with sanctions doesn't tear it apart. With sanctions that are long enough and hard enough you can grind it, ie Iraq over the 90s. And even that's optional, as the right sanctions can even control who gets impacted - for instance hitting Russia with oil and NG sanctions can hurt the oligarchs, while causing little harm to the poor who are very far removed from the flow of petrodollars.

Tho I suppose that anyone who won't learn or change after Iraq, Libya or Syria is a lost cause.

No-one is talking about invading. And of the three you listed Iraq was the only country destabilised by invasion, the other two broke out in to civil war in which other countries then decided to intervene.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I did not mean to say it was a new problem (quite the opposite, as you said), only that our solutions do very little to solve it. Plus a lightly humored comment on how the pro-business culture of the US is particularly prone to blaming lower-level employees of a company for being dissatisfied rather than the people who create those conditions.

Ah fair enough. And I agree. Truth be told, to this day we still don't know exactly why all of a sudden out of nowhere a middle class was created. And now it seems whatever drove the creation of that middle class is fading away.

And all the offsetting answers we've got, minimum wages, progressive taxes etc, well those are much better than nothing but they also do little to solve the problem. They're treating the symptoms, not the cause.

@Sebster

Of course the USA is well within its rights to retaliate against Russian hacking. I've consistently supported that position from Day 1.

The problem I have with the Democrats and other pro-Clinton voices is this view that Clinton only lost because of Russian hacking, which in my book, is concentrated hog wash!

I brought up the ME not because I think the US will invade Russia but as an example of the US acting without concern for the consequences and events therefore spiralling out of control and causing terrible misery. The sanctions against Iraq were awful and I very much doubt that they can be wielded with pin-point accuracy so that a collapsing economy has no real effect upon the Russian people.