Vladimir Putin

12357…15

Comments

  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    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.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    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.

    Fair but what game is Russia playing? Is it the same game or something far more nefarious?

    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.
    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.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    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.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    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.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    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?
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    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.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    CIA hacked by teenagers

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37316615
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    JC29856 said:

    CIA hacked by teenagers

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37316615

    At least they are pinched now, but pathetic that they got them through tech support. Embarrassing.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    JC29856 said:

    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.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited October 2016
    I looked up what Trump was referring to when he mumbled something about 20% of uranium in russian control
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

    Russia is now forming an alliance with Syria and Iran, why allow Russia so much leeway to develop nuclear weapons when they could eventually end up in Syria and Iran? Isn't that why we feared Ahmadinejad?
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUqn5uvZGjo
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    JC29856 said:

    Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:

    A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is
    B. We should not have signed the START treaty
    C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power
    D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner

    Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:

    A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is
    B. We should not have signed the START treaty
    C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power
    D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner

    Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
    So its safe to say that Obama (and Hilliary if you want to include her) was played/fooled by Putin? If so the consequences could be dire, especially if uranium or nuclears end up in the hands of Assad Rhounahi or possibly ISIS.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:

    A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is
    B. We should not have signed the START treaty
    C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power
    D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner

    Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
    So its safe to say that Obama (and Hilliary if you want to include her) was played/fooled by Putin? If so the consequences could be dire, especially if uranium or nuclears end up in the hands of Assad Rhounahi or possibly ISIS.
    Russia already has nuclear warheads so I think it's a false premise that suddenly weapons can reach Assad, ISIS, etc. And there's no way Russia is going to arm ISIS since they are a threat to Assad. But if Russia wanted to arm them, they could have for years. The US is certainly not the sole source of Uranium, it's a very minor producer. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    I'm just not sure how the US could allow Russia access to US uranium. Either way the NYT article from last year is a good place to start if anyone is interested in how this could happen.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    JC29856 said:

    I'm just not sure how the US could allow Russia access to US uranium. Either way the NYT article from last year is a good place to start if anyone is interested in how this could happen.

    Read the article I posted. We produce less than 2% of the world's uranium. Khazakistan is a much bigger supplier and right in Russia's sphere of influence. This was a non-event from a materiality perspective.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:

    A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is
    B. We should not have signed the START treaty
    C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power
    D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner

    Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
    So its safe to say that Obama (and Hilliary if you want to include her) was played/fooled by Putin? If so the consequences could be dire, especially if uranium or nuclears end up in the hands of Assad Rhounahi or possibly ISIS.
    Russia already has nuclear warheads so I think it's a false premise that suddenly weapons can reach Assad, ISIS, etc. And there's no way Russia is going to arm ISIS since they are a threat to Assad. But if Russia wanted to arm them, they could have for years. The US is certainly not the sole source of Uranium, it's a very minor producer. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
    Fair point.
    The politifact isn't entirely accurate, it subjectively claims that "Trump suggests" not what he actually said which is this State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."
    Did The State Dept approve the transfer of 20% of Americans uranium to Russia? Y/N
    and
    Did the CF receive $145M from nine related investors? Y/N
    Thats why people must be careful when relying on someone else to factcheck, or at least understand the distiction between what was said and what someone else thinks that person suggests.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,918
    edited October 2016
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    Trump also mentioned being played by Putin and Russia, WJC met with Putin in 2010 and gave his speech in 2013, could this be what he is referring to? If only trump could articulate himself alittle better than a 12 year old.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    I know the whole story. It's been rehashed in right wing circles for a few years, but again, there was nothing nefarious done by Clinton related to this sale. If you want to argue that:

    A. We were fooled into thinking the "reset" could work because Medvedev was not the despot that Putin is
    B. We should not have signed the START treaty
    C. We should have known that Putin was simply biding his time before he re-took power
    D. The Obama administration was naive into believing that Russia could be a positive world player and partner

    Then I could agree with many of these points. But Trump's position (such as it is) that he would like to be friends with Russia is just as naive. At least the Obama administration has learned its lesson and is taking a more aggressive posture to Russia. Trump seems destined to make the exact same mistakes. The irony in this seems to be lost on everyone.
    So its safe to say that Obama (and Hilliary if you want to include her) was played/fooled by Putin? If so the consequences could be dire, especially if uranium or nuclears end up in the hands of Assad Rhounahi or possibly ISIS.
    Russia already has nuclear warheads so I think it's a false premise that suddenly weapons can reach Assad, ISIS, etc. And there's no way Russia is going to arm ISIS since they are a threat to Assad. But if Russia wanted to arm them, they could have for years. The US is certainly not the sole source of Uranium, it's a very minor producer. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
    Fair point.
    The politifact isn't entirely accurate, it subjectively claims that "Trump suggests" not what he actually said which is this State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."
    Did The State Dept approve the transfer of 20% of Americans uranium to Russia? Y/N
    and
    Did the CF receive $145M from nine related investors? Y/N
    Thats why people must be careful when relying on someone else to factcheck, or at least understand the distiction between what was said and what someone else thinks that person suggests.
    These aren't Y/N questions.

Categories