Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Make America Great Again

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Again, as a "progressive" I have been consistent in my belief that the military industrial complex is often interested in enriching itself by exaggerating threats. I have also been consistent in my belief that one should be able to attempt to talk to everybody. In fact, there is a thread somewhere in this forum when I clearly expressed my opinion that it is good that Trump broke fro the orthodoxy regarding the attempt to start a diplomatic dialogue with Korea without putting in advance conditions that exclude such dialogue.

    I do not know when you served in the Pentagon, but what I see is that the solution to the end of the Cold War era came with 9/11. Then we had new exaggerations to justify new wars (see Iraq) and military expenses during the last two decades. I also see a new attempt by Trump to increase military expenses and a narrative that somehow such action is part of the project to "make America Great Again" Is this an attempt to return to a mini "Cold War" Great America with respect to the size and expenses of our military ? Because if you really believe that we are over dramatic about the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries such as Russia, then it is difficult to explain why we should increase the military spending as Trump tries to do.

    Finally, do you have specific reasons for your implied objections about the findings of the intelligence community Russia's intervention in the US elections, or is it that you assume that every such intelligence report is wrong because you cannot trust the intelligence community? And what about Iran? Do you trust their reports there? Or what about the Cold War intelligence reports? One can argue that even then there was a desire to overplay the capabilities of an adversary to justify the need for a big US military. Pacifists, and leftist frequently employed such arguments.
    Recommend you look more closely to the fall of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War lasting to 9/11. In 1991, I was a National Security Fellow at Harvard talking with professors who had already made trips on behalf of the US government to assist the Russian government in setting up a democracy and working towards a market economy.

    I do not know where you think that I implied objections about the findings on Russian intervention. Under Putin's leadership, I would not be surprised that an ex-KGB officer who wants to regain the status of the old Soviet Union would try to intervene in our elections. But, I agree with Trump we should try to open dialogue with Putin in order to work a better relationship. Remember the old adage, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." As realists are aware, it is a dubious world out there, particularly in the black world.

    Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

    Comment


    • #77
      Please show any proof or substance that a 'deep state' exists.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by ljadw View Post
        Mueller's deputy has said publicly on the DS TV station (CNN) that they would kill Trump .
        Who is Mueller's deputy? And when did this supposedly happen?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

          Obama's military service? Probably limited to the men's room.
          Right next to Trump. You really shouldn't go down that road.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Emtos View Post

            Have to disagree with you on this. Obama did the best he could. What else could he do in Syria, Ukraine and Iran ? There was not that much options on the table and he choose those which didn't implicated deaths of Americans. Notice that Trump didn't changed much those policies apart the Iran deal which was imho for the internal consumption. And when it comes to his advisers... Bolton, Pompeo and other are everything but very good advisers.
            "...the best he could" was not good enough. A clear indicator he was in over his head and surrounded with incompetent advisers. Trump has tried bringing the "Allies" around on Iran, but he has certainly withdrawn from the agreement and stopped Iran's access to our financial system. Trump's advisers are more experienced and developed in their expertise--compared to a Hillary and Kerry as Sec of States--you must be joking. Brennan was political sycophant as national security adviser and hated for how he politicized the top leadership in the CIA.
            Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 15 Jun 18, 06:51.
            Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Massena View Post

              Right next to Trump. You really shouldn't go down that road.
              How original! Can you come up with something better?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

                "...the best he could" was not good enough. A clear indicator he was in over his head and surrounded with incompetent advisers. Trump has tried bringing the "Allies" around on Iran, but he has certainly withdrawn from the agree and stopped Iran's access to our financial system. Trumps advisers are more experienced and developed in their expertise--compared to a Hillary and Kerry as Sec of States--you must be joking.
                What was the good option ? In regards of Ukraine he had the choice between hard line, middle line and soft line. Soft line was unacceptable for prestige reasons. He couldn't ignore the events and take any action. Hard line wasn't a choice either. Should Putin be cornered, he probably would decide to take all over Eastern Ukraine since there would be nothing to lose. Obama took the middle line and put Russia in a difficult position. Same for Syria. Soft and hard lines were unacceptable.
                Trump's advisors are far behind even from Hillary and Kerry. Those at least had a decent reputation of moderate liberals. On the other side, Bolton is a chickenhawk obsessed wit American nationalism while Kushner is a pro-Israel lobbist. Others aren't much better.
                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
                  I do not know where you think that I implied objections about the findings on Russian intervention. Under Putin's leadership, I would not be surprised that an ex-KGB officer who wants to regain the status of the old Soviet Union would try to intervene in our elections. But, I agree with Trump we should try to open dialogue with Putin in order to work a better relationship. Remember the old adage, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." As realists are aware, it is a dubious world out there, particularly in the black world.
                  This is certainly not Putin. I wonder why so many don't understand him while he is pretty simple as a person and politician.
                  There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Massena View Post

                    Who is Mueller's deputy? And when did this supposedly happen?


                    On August 11 2017 Phill Mud,deputy of Mueller, said on CNN to Jake Tapper : 'The government is going to kill this guy'
                    No indignant reactions from CNN, WAPO, NYT,etc . This means that they agreed .
                    And, who is the government ? VA ? Education? USAID ? for this FBI/CIA agent the government is the Intelligence Community . This public declaration of war , this condemnation to death, not only to the potus, but to those who dared to attack Deep State, proves the omnipotence of Deep State . Deep State has started the Civil War .

                    Imagine that Hillary was elected potus and that on Fox,Flynn had said : we will kill her . Try to imagine the reactions .

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                      What was the good option ? In regards of Ukraine he had the choice between hard line, middle line and soft line. Soft line was unacceptable for prestige reasons. He couldn't ignore the events and take any action. Hard line wasn't a choice either. Should Putin be cornered, he probably would decide to take all over Eastern Ukraine since there would be nothing to lose. Obama took the middle line and put Russia in a difficult position. Same for Syria. Soft and hard lines were unacceptable.
                      Trump's advisors are far behind even from Hillary and Kerry. Those at least had a decent reputation of moderate liberals. On the other side, Bolton is a chickenhawk obsessed wit American nationalism while Kushner is a pro-Israel lobbist. Others aren't much better.
                      Have NATO countries, stop their trade in gas and the pipeline from Russia, station NATO forces in the Baltic States/Poland/elsewhere in Eastern Europe, send armament and advisers to Ukraine, and engage Putin in negotiations.
                      Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        Please show any proof or substance that a 'deep state' exists.
                        Sigh : you asked this before and I gave you 3 sources who should be reliable for you :

                        Bill Kristol (nevertrumper) : I prefer Deep State to Trump State

                        Dana Bash ( spokeswoman of DS ): Deep State will go after Trump .

                        Phill Mud : Deep State will kill Trump .

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
                          Have NATO countries, stop their trade in gas and the pipeline from Russia, station NATO forces in the Baltic States/Poland/elsewhere in Eastern Europe, send armament and advisers to Ukraine, and engage Putin in negotiations.
                          Easier said than done.

                          Stopping gas is not going to happen and "station NATO forces", in practice, means send over US American divisions.
                          High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
                          Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            One of the professors I talked with was Graham Allison who I knew of from his excellent book, "Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis" (his second addition picks up a co-author, Philip Zelikow, who could exploit Russian documentation) which is a great primer for understanding decision-making in international affairs. His work uses three models for decisions: rational actor, organizational behavior, and governmental politics which gives you three perspectives in situation given the actors. I made it a required reading for my university students in international relations courses--they found it very enlightening. It will help you define a deep state in government with real world examples.
                            Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

                              Have NATO countries, stop their trade in gas and the pipeline from Russia, station NATO forces in the Baltic States/Poland/elsewhere in Eastern Europe, send armament and advisers to Ukraine, and engage Putin in negotiations.
                              Are you serious ? EU was already reluctant to introduce sanctions against Russia. Germany imports 35-40% of their gas and oil from Russia. There is no way to replace it. For some other EU countries the situation is similar. Trade with Russia amounts to 200 billions of imports and exports. There is no way that this would be sacrificed because rioters toppled the government. More NATO forces would basically mean more US forces. Again Europe would be reluctant to follow. It would just take more US money and helping Russian propaganda with stories about Western Nazis preparing a new 22 June. Finally, armaments and advisers were sent to Ukraine. In case of real conflict with Russia they would matter little. And if more would be sent, more Russia would help the separatists. If too much would be sent, Russian army would simply invade in a direct way. So Obama did the maximum.
                              There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                                Are you serious ? EU was already reluctant to introduce sanctions against Russia. Germany imports 35-40% of their gas and oil from Russia. There is no way to replace it.
                                There are a number of ways to replace it, they are simply more expensive.
                                High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
                                Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X