I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.
Curious if you support the Trump position on Russia or the Clinton/Pence/Kaine?
I don't know what the Trump position is on Russia but I believe he has positioned himself to be the most effective in checking Putin.
How can you not know but then make that statement?
I don't know because I don't think Trump has thought that far ahead. Now in terms of strategy though as a possible future President I believe he has left himself the strongest opportunity to negotiate and or check Putin for a few reasons:
1) His language towards Putin has not backed Putin into a corner where Putin feels he has to confront Trump in order to save face or protect Russian pride. 2) Putin is a man who respects strength and whether you like Trump or not he has demonstrated strength...almost pigheadly so. Putin knows that Trump will not bow to public opinion and or weak-kneed american media if the going gets tough 3) Trump has given off the impression to many on the left that he is "crazy". That we can't trust a man like that with the nuclear codes. It helps in foreign policy if your adversary thinks you're "crazy". Putin has to factor that into his decision making calculus. 4) Allies who are making the decision whether to tilt toward the Russian sphere or whether to depend on America will take comfort in Trump's appearance of strength and will take him as a man of his word when it cones to deal making. The public right now has not fully come to realize how long term allies feel abandoned by this administration. Trump can mend those relationships.
Now I don't know what his intentions with respect to Russia are but should he take a "Clinton/Pence/Kaine approach" he would be far more effective in implementing it. From a Sun Tzu perspective this seems obvious to me.
Turkey in or out isn't breaking NATO. You would need one of the big Western countries to be overtaken by a Trumpesque autocrat to break it. Far right factions in Germany, France and the US are much more of a threat to its future, IMO.
I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.
Curious if you support the Trump position on Russia or the Clinton/Pence/Kaine?
I don't know what the Trump position is on Russia but I believe he has positioned himself to be the most effective in checking Putin.
How can you not know but then make that statement?
I don't know because I don't think Trump has thought that far ahead. Now in terms of strategy though as a possible future President I believe he has left himself the strongest opportunity to negotiate and or check Putin for a few reasons:
1) His language towards Putin has not backed Putin into a corner where Putin feels he has to confront Trump in order to save face or protect Russian pride. 2) Putin is a man who respects strength and whether you like Trump or not he has demonstrated strength...almost pigheadly so. Putin knows that Trump will not bow to public opinion and or weak-kneed american media if the going gets tough 3) Trump has given off the impression to many on the left that he is "crazy". That we can't trust a man like that with the nuclear codes. It helps in foreign policy if your adversary thinks you're "crazy". Putin has to factor that into his decision making calculus. 4) Allies who are making the decision whether to tilt toward the Russian sphere or whether to depend on America will take comfort in Trump's appearance of strength and will take him as a man of his word when it cones to deal making. The public right now has not fully come to realize how long term allies feel abandoned by this administration. Trump can mend those relationships.
Now I don't know what his intentions with respect to Russia are but should he take a "Clinton/Pence/Kaine approach" he would be far more effective in implementing it. From a Sun Tzu perspective this seems obvious to me.
I won't address one and two because I really have no idea how you came to those conclusions. If anything Putin is playing Trump like a marionette.
3. Since when is it a good strategy to appear unpredictable or crazy? In what foreign policy world has that ever been a positive attribute? IF he thinks Trump is unpredictable, wouldn't that force him to be unpredictable..FIRST? This can't possibly be your argument for Trump. 4. They are doing precisely the opposite. Foreign leaders are appalled by Trump and his questioning of: 1. A nuclear Japan 2. Protectino for S. Korea 3. NATO commitment 4. His ties and amiable language towards Russia.
I'm sorry, you are a smart guy but this post is not grounded in fact at all. Why else would the foreign policy establishment be going to Clinton in droves? They respect her even if they don't agree. The know she is serious and thoughtful. Read this... please for the love of God:
Turkey in or out isn't breaking NATO. You would need one of the big Western countries to be overtaken by a Trumpesque autocrat to break it. Far right factions in Germany, France and the US are much more of a threat to its future, IMO.
Wow. And there it is...the "far right trumpesque autocrat" is your biggest concern. Of course. Are you not paying attention? Turkey was just taken over by an autocrat! What breaks NATO is if Russia pushes into the Baltics and members fail to invoke Article 5...at that point the alliance is over. Your statement gives away the game...it always is always be the "far right" to people on here.
Clinton Played Down Russian Aggression Behind Closed-Doors, Saying "We Don't Believe That There Will Be A Threat From Russia
In A Paid Speech Behind Closed Doors, Clinton Said, "We Don't Believe That There Will Be A Threat From Russia." CLINTON: "I last saw [Putin] in Vladivostok where I represented President Obama in September for the Asia Pacific economic community. I sat next to him. He's an engaging and, you know, very interesting conversationalist. We talked about a lot of issues that were not the hot-button issues between us, you know, his view on missile defense, which we think is misplaced because, you know, we don't believe that there will be a threat from Russia, but we think that both Russia and the United States are going to face threats from their perimeter, either from rogue states like Iran or from terrorist groups, that's not the way he sees it." (TCARRK@HillaryClinton.com, Hillary Clinton remarks at Sanford Bernstein, 5/29/13, Email To Clinton Campaign Communications Staff, 2/8/16)
Turkey in or out isn't breaking NATO. You would need one of the big Western countries to be overtaken by a Trumpesque autocrat to break it. Far right factions in Germany, France and the US are much more of a threat to its future, IMO.
Wow. And there it is...the "far right trumpesque autocrat" is your biggest concern. Of course. Are you not paying attention? Turkey was just taken over by an autocrat! What breaks NATO is if Russia pushes into the Baltics and members fail to invoke Article 5...at that point the alliance is over. Your statement gives away the game...it always is always be the "far right" to people on here.
How are you doing "gotcha" moments on me? My point is that Turkey is important but I don't think critical to NATOs survival. it's location is important though. The second point is that the right wing autocrat that is a nationalist like Trump and Putin would be more willing NOT to invoke article V. That's what breaks down NATO. I can see I wasn't clear.
I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.
Curious if you support the Trump position on Russia or the Clinton/Pence/Kaine?
I don't know what the Trump position is on Russia but I believe he has positioned himself to be the most effective in checking Putin.
How can you not know but then make that statement?
I don't know because I don't think Trump has thought that far ahead. Now in terms of strategy though as a possible future President I believe he has left himself the strongest opportunity to negotiate and or check Putin for a few reasons:
1) His language towards Putin has not backed Putin into a corner where Putin feels he has to confront Trump in order to save face or protect Russian pride. 2) Putin is a man who respects strength and whether you like Trump or not he has demonstrated strength...almost pigheadly so. Putin knows that Trump will not bow to public opinion and or weak-kneed american media if the going gets tough 3) Trump has given off the impression to many on the left that he is "crazy". That we can't trust a man like that with the nuclear codes. It helps in foreign policy if your adversary thinks you're "crazy". Putin has to factor that into his decision making calculus. 4) Allies who are making the decision whether to tilt toward the Russian sphere or whether to depend on America will take comfort in Trump's appearance of strength and will take him as a man of his word when it cones to deal making. The public right now has not fully come to realize how long term allies feel abandoned by this administration. Trump can mend those relationships.
Now I don't know what his intentions with respect to Russia are but should he take a "Clinton/Pence/Kaine approach" he would be far more effective in implementing it. From a Sun Tzu perspective this seems obvious to me.
I won't address one and two because I really have no idea how you came to those conclusions. If anything Putin is playing Trump like a marionette.
3. Since when is it a good strategy to appear unpredictable or crazy? In what foreign policy world has that ever been a positive attribute? IF he thinks Trump is unpredictable, wouldn't that force him to be unpredictable..FIRST? This can't possibly be your argument for Trump. 4. They are doing precisely the opposite. Foreign leaders are appalled by Trump and his questioning of: 1. A nuclear Japan 2. Protectino for S. Korea 3. NATO commitment 4. His ties and amiable language towards Russia.
I'm sorry, you are a smart guy but this post is not grounded in fact at all. Why else would the foreign policy establishment be going to Clinton in droves? They respect her even if they don't agree. The know she is serious and thoughtful. Read this... please for the love of God:
I'm familiar with all of that but I have zero faith in her or the foreign policy establishment that allowed for this "reset" to occur under their watch. They have all utterly failed in their responsibities under the last 8 years of Obama. This administration made fun of Mitt Romney for his position on Russia and where were these people? Sorry but they blew it. I don't like Trump at all but the world has changed and the pieces on the Risk board are no longer in the same place. A bolder leader is needed even if he is erratic and untested because the staus quo is no longer acceptable.
I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.
Curious if you support the Trump position on Russia or the Clinton/Pence/Kaine?
I don't know what the Trump position is on Russia but I believe he has positioned himself to be the most effective in checking Putin.
How can you not know but then make that statement?
I don't know because I don't think Trump has thought that far ahead. Now in terms of strategy though as a possible future President I believe he has left himself the strongest opportunity to negotiate and or check Putin for a few reasons:
1) His language towards Putin has not backed Putin into a corner where Putin feels he has to confront Trump in order to save face or protect Russian pride. 2) Putin is a man who respects strength and whether you like Trump or not he has demonstrated strength...almost pigheadly so. Putin knows that Trump will not bow to public opinion and or weak-kneed american media if the going gets tough 3) Trump has given off the impression to many on the left that he is "crazy". That we can't trust a man like that with the nuclear codes. It helps in foreign policy if your adversary thinks you're "crazy". Putin has to factor that into his decision making calculus. 4) Allies who are making the decision whether to tilt toward the Russian sphere or whether to depend on America will take comfort in Trump's appearance of strength and will take him as a man of his word when it cones to deal making. The public right now has not fully come to realize how long term allies feel abandoned by this administration. Trump can mend those relationships.
Now I don't know what his intentions with respect to Russia are but should he take a "Clinton/Pence/Kaine approach" he would be far more effective in implementing it. From a Sun Tzu perspective this seems obvious to me.
I won't address one and two because I really have no idea how you came to those conclusions. If anything Putin is playing Trump like a marionette.
3. Since when is it a good strategy to appear unpredictable or crazy? In what foreign policy world has that ever been a positive attribute? IF he thinks Trump is unpredictable, wouldn't that force him to be unpredictable..FIRST? This can't possibly be your argument for Trump. 4. They are doing precisely the opposite. Foreign leaders are appalled by Trump and his questioning of: 1. A nuclear Japan 2. Protectino for S. Korea 3. NATO commitment 4. His ties and amiable language towards Russia.
I'm sorry, you are a smart guy but this post is not grounded in fact at all. Why else would the foreign policy establishment be going to Clinton in droves? They respect her even if they don't agree. The know she is serious and thoughtful. Read this... please for the love of God:
I'm familiar with all of that but I have zero faith in her or the foreign policy establishment that allowed for this "reset" to occur under their watch. They have all utterly failed in their responsibities under the last 8 years of Obama. This administration made fun of Mitt Romney for his position on Russia and where were these people? Sorry but they blew it. I don't like Trump at all but the world has changed and the pieces on the Risk board are no longer in the same place. A bolder leader is needed even if he is erratic and untested because the staus quo is no longer acceptable.
The conservative approach, maintained by a steady hand and predictable actions led to no nuclear destruction and a victory in the cold war. We aren't going to defeat Russia as a nation, but making it difficult for them to do business in the west, continued sanctions while they are in Ukraine and maintaining the bulwark that is NATO is the right move. They have new ambitions, but they are inherently rational. That's a good thing. We also need a rational leader. Russia understands that power today is economic power. Why do you think they want Crimea? Syria, Iran, Russia and Turkey are not going to beat the West economically. And if they get close, it's actually a good thing for us. We could use two of those countries becoming more consumer oriented.
I hope somebody in the administration is minding the store.
Curious if you support the Trump position on Russia or the Clinton/Pence/Kaine?
I don't know what the Trump position is on Russia but I believe he has positioned himself to be the most effective in checking Putin.
How can you not know but then make that statement?
I don't know because I don't think Trump has thought that far ahead. Now in terms of strategy though as a possible future President I believe he has left himself the strongest opportunity to negotiate and or check Putin for a few reasons:
1) His language towards Putin has not backed Putin into a corner where Putin feels he has to confront Trump in order to save face or protect Russian pride. 2) Putin is a man who respects strength and whether you like Trump or not he has demonstrated strength...almost pigheadly so. Putin knows that Trump will not bow to public opinion and or weak-kneed american media if the going gets tough 3) Trump has given off the impression to many on the left that he is "crazy". That we can't trust a man like that with the nuclear codes. It helps in foreign policy if your adversary thinks you're "crazy". Putin has to factor that into his decision making calculus. 4) Allies who are making the decision whether to tilt toward the Russian sphere or whether to depend on America will take comfort in Trump's appearance of strength and will take him as a man of his word when it cones to deal making. The public right now has not fully come to realize how long term allies feel abandoned by this administration. Trump can mend those relationships.
Now I don't know what his intentions with respect to Russia are but should he take a "Clinton/Pence/Kaine approach" he would be far more effective in implementing it. From a Sun Tzu perspective this seems obvious to me.
I won't address one and two because I really have no idea how you came to those conclusions. If anything Putin is playing Trump like a marionette.
3. Since when is it a good strategy to appear unpredictable or crazy? In what foreign policy world has that ever been a positive attribute? IF he thinks Trump is unpredictable, wouldn't that force him to be unpredictable..FIRST? This can't possibly be your argument for Trump. 4. They are doing precisely the opposite. Foreign leaders are appalled by Trump and his questioning of: 1. A nuclear Japan 2. Protectino for S. Korea 3. NATO commitment 4. His ties and amiable language towards Russia.
I'm sorry, you are a smart guy but this post is not grounded in fact at all. Why else would the foreign policy establishment be going to Clinton in droves? They respect her even if they don't agree. The know she is serious and thoughtful. Read this... please for the love of God:
I'm familiar with all of that but I have zero faith in her or the foreign policy establishment that allowed for this "reset" to occur under their watch. They have all utterly failed in their responsibities under the last 8 years of Obama. This administration made fun of Mitt Romney for his position on Russia and where were these people? Sorry but they blew it. I don't like Trump at all but the world has changed and the pieces on the Risk board are no longer in the same place. A bolder leader is needed even if he is erratic and untested because the staus quo is no longer acceptable.
BTW - the link I have you was from GOP leaders who generally did not support the 'reset', but still support Clinton. That is the same Clinton who was skeptical about the reset, along with Gates and Beyrle. Is it any wonder why Putin despises Clinton and Beyrle? I think he is actually banned from the country.
There is no way NBC publishes this unless the CIA sources approved. They are sending a message and playing a game with Russia.
I don't understand the Iraq analogy.
The CIA couldn't have been more wrong about Iraq WMDs which was used as a pretext to war after the consensus was that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. I think 911 and the Iraq war are pretty significant events in US history especially considering the $ resources and lives spent. If they can't get WMDs right how can i expect them to get cyber security right? Isn't this more NSA anyway.
There is no way NBC publishes this unless the CIA sources approved. They are sending a message and playing a game with Russia.
I don't understand the Iraq analogy.
The CIA couldn't have been more wrong about Iraq WMDs which was used as a pretext to war after the consensus was that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. I think 911 and the Iraq war are pretty significant events in US history especially considering the $ resources and lives spent. If they can't get WMDs right how can i expect them to get cyber security right? Isn't this more NSA anyway.
Well I agree wit you. I'm not saying they are doing the right thing, I'm just saying there is no way NBC writes this story without clearance.
Between Russian military posturing and Iranian backed attacks on US attacks in the gulf this is starting to get pretty damn serious.
Total posturing and perhaps more effort to influence the election. If Trump starts using this on the stump, then you know it's true. This is not military level disputes. We've dealt with far worse from them.
There is no way NBC publishes this unless the CIA sources approved. They are sending a message and playing a game with Russia.
I don't understand the Iraq analogy.
The CIA couldn't have been more wrong about Iraq WMDs which was used as a pretext to war after the consensus was that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. I think 911 and the Iraq war are pretty significant events in US history especially considering the $ resources and lives spent. If they can't get WMDs right how can i expect them to get cyber security right? Isn't this more NSA anyway.
Well I agree wit you. I'm not saying they are doing the right thing, I'm just saying there is no way NBC writes this story without clearance.
And I agree with you but this is one of the big negatives of the Obama administration. They like to advertise actions to give off the appearance that they are doing "something". You see the one thing about the "russia is responsible for all the hacks" claim (which might be true) is that the Obama administration actually has to respond to it. People are starting to ask "Ok Mr. President...you are in charge...if Russia is interfering then what is your administration going to do about it?". The president's response can't continue to be nothing so the administration leaks some type of action they are taking to show they are on top of things. But are they actually on top of things or are they just leaking this for domestic purposes? In my eyes a real response should be done in silence and in the shadows with the knowledge of only the appropriate congressional oversight committees. For now this should not be a public game.
There is no way NBC publishes this unless the CIA sources approved. They are sending a message and playing a game with Russia.
I don't understand the Iraq analogy.
The CIA couldn't have been more wrong about Iraq WMDs which was used as a pretext to war after the consensus was that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. I think 911 and the Iraq war are pretty significant events in US history especially considering the $ resources and lives spent. If they can't get WMDs right how can i expect them to get cyber security right? Isn't this more NSA anyway.
Well I agree wit you. I'm not saying they are doing the right thing, I'm just saying there is no way NBC writes this story without clearance.
I'm also referring to the CIA cyber threat in retaliation to the Russian interfering with our elections without proof. Maybe when the CIA finds the WMDs in Iraq they will also find proof Russia hacked the emails.
There is no way NBC publishes this unless the CIA sources approved. They are sending a message and playing a game with Russia.
I don't understand the Iraq analogy.
The CIA couldn't have been more wrong about Iraq WMDs which was used as a pretext to war after the consensus was that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. I think 911 and the Iraq war are pretty significant events in US history especially considering the $ resources and lives spent. If they can't get WMDs right how can i expect them to get cyber security right? Isn't this more NSA anyway.
Well I agree wit you. I'm not saying they are doing the right thing, I'm just saying there is no way NBC writes this story without clearance.
I'm also referring to the CIA cyber threat in retaliation to the Russian interfering with our elections without proof. Maybe when the CIA finds the WMDs in Iraq they will also find proof Russia hacked the emails.
The CIA has a high degree of confidence. The fact that the CIA was wrong in 2002 doesn't mean we haven't relied on the agency for lots of intelligence since then. Are you an advocate of disbanding, ignoring, or not retaliating until we litigate the issue in Geneva?
There is no way NBC publishes this unless the CIA sources approved. They are sending a message and playing a game with Russia.
I don't understand the Iraq analogy.
The CIA couldn't have been more wrong about Iraq WMDs which was used as a pretext to war after the consensus was that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. I think 911 and the Iraq war are pretty significant events in US history especially considering the $ resources and lives spent. If they can't get WMDs right how can i expect them to get cyber security right? Isn't this more NSA anyway.
Well I agree wit you. I'm not saying they are doing the right thing, I'm just saying there is no way NBC writes this story without clearance.
I'm also referring to the CIA cyber threat in retaliation to the Russian interfering with our elections without proof. Maybe when the CIA finds the WMDs in Iraq they will also find proof Russia hacked the emails.
The CIA has a high degree of confidence. The fact that the CIA was wrong in 2002 doesn't mean we haven't relied on the agency for lots of intelligence since then. Are you an advocate of disbanding, ignoring, or not retaliating until we litigate the issue in Geneva?
Of course not Geneva doesn't apply to us, but based on the history of lies that plunged us into empirical wars of aggression costing countless lives and trillions of $, not a bad idea.
Whatever your opinion of Trump Hilliary Russia and Putin, why would the Hilliary as Sec of State, the Clinton Foundation and Arkansas Bill play a role in allowing Russia to acquire and control a good portion of the worlds uranium supply? Im referring to the Uranium investors donations to CF and State Dept approval of mining under Clinton as SoS and Bills $500,000 Kremlin speech. Doesn't make sense.
Whatever your opinion of Trump Hilliary Russia and Putin, why would the Hilliary as Sec of State, the Clinton Foundation and Arkansas Bill play a role in allowing Russia to acquire and control a good portion of the worlds uranium supply? Im referring to the Uranium investors donations to CF and State Dept approval of mining under Clinton as SoS and Bills $500,000 Kremlin speech. Doesn't make sense.
Dude, c'mon. This was a cabinet level decision that included Obama as the final sign off. You need DHS, DOD, the Joint Chiefs, plus I believe, 5 other departments to clear this sale. I think I read that NINE departments signed off on this. And somehow it was orchestrated by "Arkansas Bill". Give me a fucking break.
Comments
1) His language towards Putin has not backed Putin into a corner where Putin feels he has to confront Trump in order to save face or protect Russian pride.
2) Putin is a man who respects strength and whether you like Trump or not he has demonstrated strength...almost pigheadly so. Putin knows that Trump will not bow to public opinion and or weak-kneed american media if the going gets tough
3) Trump has given off the impression to many on the left that he is "crazy". That we can't trust a man like that with the nuclear codes. It helps in foreign policy if your adversary thinks you're "crazy". Putin has to factor that into his decision making calculus.
4) Allies who are making the decision whether to tilt toward the Russian sphere or whether to depend on America will take comfort in Trump's appearance of strength and will take him as a man of his word when it cones to deal making. The public right now has not fully come to realize how long term allies feel abandoned by this administration. Trump can mend those relationships.
Now I don't know what his intentions with respect to Russia are but should he take a "Clinton/Pence/Kaine approach" he would be far more effective in implementing it. From a Sun Tzu perspective this seems obvious to me.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/world/europe/turkey-russia-vladimir-putin-recep-tayyip-erdogan.html?referer=http://www.drudgereport.com/
3. Since when is it a good strategy to appear unpredictable or crazy? In what foreign policy world has that ever been a positive attribute? IF he thinks Trump is unpredictable, wouldn't that force him to be unpredictable..FIRST? This can't possibly be your argument for Trump.
4. They are doing precisely the opposite. Foreign leaders are appalled by Trump and his questioning of:
1. A nuclear Japan
2. Protectino for S. Korea
3. NATO commitment
4. His ties and amiable language towards Russia.
I'm sorry, you are a smart guy but this post is not grounded in fact at all. Why else would the foreign policy establishment be going to Clinton in droves? They respect her even if they don't agree. The know she is serious and thoughtful. Read this... please for the love of God:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/09/foreign-policy-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-of-the-united-states/
and this..
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/republican-national-security-letter-donald-trump-election-2016/
Clinton Played Down Russian Aggression Behind Closed-Doors, Saying "We Don't Believe That There Will Be A Threat From Russia
In A Paid Speech Behind Closed Doors, Clinton Said, "We Don't Believe That There Will Be A Threat From Russia." CLINTON: "I last saw [Putin] in Vladivostok where I represented President Obama in September for the Asia Pacific economic community. I sat next to him. He's an engaging and, you know, very interesting conversationalist. We talked about a lot of issues that were not the hot-button issues between us, you know, his view on missile defense, which we think is misplaced because, you know, we don't believe that there will be a threat from Russia, but we think that both Russia and the United States are going to face threats from their perimeter, either from rogue states like Iran or from terrorist groups, that's not the way he sees it." (TCARRK@HillaryClinton.com, Hillary Clinton remarks at Sanford Bernstein, 5/29/13, Email To Clinton Campaign Communications Staff, 2/8/16)
http://observer.com/2016/10/obama-blows-off-putin-encouraging-kremlin-aggression-against-nato/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cia-prepping-possible-cyber-strike-against-russia-n666636
This kind of shit should not be in the paper.
Russia or the CIA?
I don't understand the Iraq analogy.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/ways-russia-telling-people-prepare-war/story?id=42800992&cid=share_facebook_widget
Between Russian military posturing and Iranian backed attacks on US attacks in the gulf this is starting to get pretty damn serious.
If they can't get WMDs right how can i expect them to get cyber security right? Isn't this more NSA anyway.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37316615