Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Make America Great Again

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    There are a number of ways to replace it, they are simply more expensive.
    In a long run. In space of a couple of years it's impossible.
    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

    Comment


    • #92
      Sure it is, gas is not in short supply, in fact price is low atm.

      Driving price up is often cited as motive for the policies of both US and Russia.

      https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/natu...xecutives.html

      Natural gas oversupply will not last forever.
      "(The current price) isn't enough to stimulate big, new projects that are going to be needed. The question is how to finance new projects needed to meet the next decade's needs," said Flowers.
      High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
      Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

      Comment


      • #93
        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. 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.
        Yes, US could take up some slack--we are a major producer. Just curbing the take would send a message for long range Russian plans. What is the maximum of nothing?
        Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

          Yes, US could take up some slack--we are a major producer. Just curbing the take would send a message for long range Russian plans. What is the maximum of nothing?
          EU wouldn't do more than it did. Message was already sent long ago, that US didn't care and will not respect Russian interests nor follow the same standards regarding everybody. Russia understood and is acting - at least in part - in consequence. Being harder will just induce a harder answer from Russia.
          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

            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.
            I am not sure why you think that I implied that in 1991 there were not attempts to establish a market economy in Russia. My point was that the deep cuts in military expenses after the Cold War left many people in the military-industrial complex hungry for new excuses to raise revenues, and when 9/11 came there was a clear "overcorrection" to bring their business and careers back to the "right path." As for the "professors" you mention, they are not a monolithic block of people which holds some common beliefs. Their attitude is affected by the sector they serve and the grants they get. A professor in economics would be very thrilled in 1991. A Sovietologist or a professor getting many grants from the DOD for research not so much.

            But we agree in your claims that we need to cultivate relations with Russia. I thought you implied that you had objections about the findings of the Russian investigation because when I reminded you how Trump treated the intelligence reports about the Russian meddling, you came back telling me your personal experience fighting bias within the intelligence community. So, it seemed like you were saying that Trump was right to dismiss the intelligence reports. If you are saying that you do not have objections about the findings on the Russian investigation, then I am glad to hear it.

            I also certainly agree that Putin is a person who envisions a stronger Russia. I also believe that ANY Russian president, regardless of his background would want to resurrect the Russian power. This is normal and should be expected by any leader of any big country, especially after the US continued to "poke the bear" despite its victory by expanding NATO and establishing antiballistic missiles close to the Russian borders. This does not mean that we should not engage diplomatically such persons just because they act based on their interests of their countries, but it does mean that we should not ignore foreign attempts to meddle with domestic US affairs or pretend that they never existed and they are a product of bias within the US intelligence community. The latter attitude belongs to a slogan that says "Make America a banana republic" instead of "Great"
            Last edited by pamak; 15 Jun 18, 13:15.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              I am not sure why you think that I implied that in 1991 there were not attempts to establish a market economy in Russia. My point was that the deep cuts in military expenses after the Cold War left many people in the military-industrial complex hungry for new excuses to raise revenues, and when 9/11 came there was a clear "overcorrection" to bring their business and careers back to the "right path." As for the "professors" you mention, they are not a monolithic block of people which holds some common beliefs. Their attitude is affected by the sector they serve and the grants they get. A professor in economics would be very thrilled in 1991. A Sovietologist or a professor getting many grants from the DOD for research not so much.

              But we agree in your claims that we need to cultivate relations with Russia. I thought you implied that you had objections about the findings of the Russian investigation because when I reminded you how Trump treated the intelligence reports about the Russian meddling, you came back telling me your personal experience fighting bias within the intelligence community. So, it seemed like you were saying that Trump was right to dismiss the intelligence reports. If you are saying that you do not have objections about the findings on the Russian investigation, then I am glad to hear it.

              I also certainly agree that Putin is a person who envisions a stronger Russia. I also believe that ANY Russian president, regardless of his background would want to resurrect the Russian power. This is normal and should be expected by any leader of any big country, especially after the US continued to "poke the bear" despite its victory by expanding NATO and establishing antiballistic missiles close to the Russian borders. This does not mean that we should not engage diplomatically such persons just because they act based on their interests of their countries, but it does mean that we should not ignore foreign attempts to meddle with domestic US affairs or pretend that they never existed and they are a product of bias within the US intelligence community. The latter attitude belongs to a slogan that says "Make America a banana republic" instead of "Great"
              We're already a banana republic, or haven't you noticed the Spanish second language for the last twenty years or so?
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                We're already a banana republic, or haven't you noticed the Spanish second language for the last twenty years or so?
                The Spanish second language is a natural part of the American history. How do you think we came up with names like Los Angeles and San Fransisco?
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  I am not sure why you think that I implied that in 1991 there were not attempts to establish a market economy in Russia.
                  I was not thinking that you implied no attempts , but rather I was making the point a decade before 9/11 the US was already making efforts to help a new Russian economy and political system rather than prolonging the Cold War as you stated in your post.

                  Yes, the defense/military would have liked the Cold War foe as a known enemy force for threats and force development, but by 1992 they had a working threat model that looked at regional threats and technological threats. The intelligence agencies were dropping the numbers of Soviet analysts for more regional experts.

                  When (1992) I became Director of Future Threats, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, U.S. Army General Staff, HQDA, I proposed the threat spectrum model which offered a better analytic model for combining all threats (as noted in a previous post) on a single complexity spectrum. My threat model put cracks in other service and department 'rice bowls'. Air force and navy did not like it because it illustrated, at that time, the large gaps in capabilities of their forces with other foreign air forces and navies (Russia did not have a comparable airlift capability and China did not have a Blue Water Navy). Also the force development people wanted top end technologies to take on countries in all the different regions, when the spectrum model showed that most armies were built to fight their neighbors not the US. For example, Latin American countries tended build small infantry based armies while Asian armies were much larger with varying degrees of motorization and mechanization.

                  In the area of non-state threats, the spectrum model illustrated the difference in capabilities of terrorists operating within one country versus those that crossed nation boundaries and those who could move people, money and equipment globally. A single global group grabbed everyone's attention at 9/11.[Today we have several terrorist organization that can operate at the global level.]

                  One can see your mis-perception of the inner workings of intelligence organizations in the period between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 as to an insider who worked the transition.
                  Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 15 Jun 18, 14:26.
                  Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

                    I was not thinking that you implied no attempts , but rather I was making the point a decade before 9/11 the US was already making efforts to help a new Russian economy and political system rather than prolonging the Cold War as you stated in your post.
                    The word "help" should be used in brackets. 90's were comparable to WWII and Civil War if not worse and US played his part in it. By supporting Eltsin they irronically allowed the rise of Putin. So we can say that US created a new state of Cold War.
                    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

                      I was not thinking that you implied no attempts , but rather I was making the point a decade before 9/11 the US was already making efforts to help a new Russian economy and political system rather than prolonging the Cold War as you stated in your post.

                      Yes, the defense/military would have liked the Cold War foe as a known enemy force for threats and force development, but by 1992 they had a working threat model that looked at regional threats and technological threats. The intelligence agencies were dropping the numbers of Soviet analysts for more regional experts.

                      When (1992) I became Director of Future Threats, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, U.S. Army General Staff, HQDA, I proposed the threat spectrum model which offered a better analytic model for combining all threats (as noted in a previous post) on a single complexity spectrum. My threat model put cracks in other service and department 'rice bowls'. Air force and navy did not like it because it illustrated, at that time, the large gaps in capabilities of their forces with other foreign air forces and navies (Russia did not have a comparable airlift capability and China did not have a Blue Water Navy). Also the force development people wanted top end technologies to take on countries in all the different regions, when the spectrum model showed that most armies were built to fight their neighbors not the US. For example, Latin American countries tended build small infantry based armies while Asian armies were much larger with varying degrees of motorization and mechanization.

                      In the area of non-state threats, the spectrum model illustrated the difference in capabilities of terrorists operating within one country versus those that crossed nation boundaries and those who could move people, money and equipment globally. A single global group grabbed everyone's attention at 9/11.[Today we have several terrorist organization that can operate at the global level.]

                      One can see your mis-perception of the inner workings of intelligence organizations in the period between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 as to an insider who worked the transition.
                      Bold mine

                      Well, the following quote came from you, not me

                      Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
                      ...The intelligence community since the fall of the Soviet Union has wanted a resurrection of a Russia that can become the Cold War enemy again...


                      The fact that intelligence analysts had to create (or at least try to create) a new working threat model was natural and the only option for those who still remained in the intelligence field. But by saying that " by 1992 they had a working threat model that looked at regional threats and technological threats" (which I never disputed) does not change the fact that there was a desire to create a more imminent threat which brought an additional element of bias within the intelligence community and which played a role in the intelligence assessments after 9/11. Also, I am not sure how you evaluate the new threat model of the 1990's. You called it a "working" model which requires some explanation considering the 9/11 intelligence failures and the need for a massive reorganization of the intelligence community after 9/11 which shows a perception that there was a systemic problem.
                      Last edited by pamak; 15 Jun 18, 16:01.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                        I don't know why conservatives don't like their country.
                        Current(or Past) "guv'mint" in power and ideology are separate from Country.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          Bold mine

                          . Also, I am not sure how you evaluate the new threat model of the 1990's. You called it a "working" model which requires some explanation considering the 9/11 intelligence failures and the need for a massive reorganization of the intelligence community after 9/11 which shows a perception that there was a systemic problem.
                          I am sure that you are not sure how, because you work from suppositions and do not seem to have worked in the intelligence field, nor have command of information for this period. For example, do you know under the Clinton administration Sudan was on the outs diplomatically, so when they offered their intelligence information on bin Laden who had been operating in their country our intelligence would not take the information--you can find open press article in a back issue of Vanity Fair.

                          How long do you think it takes an organization to change from Soviet analysts to regional/country analysts around the world? And how long do you think it takes an analyst to learn the language (because there is a risk with native speakers), learn all-source collection capabilities, and develop analytic skills and critical judgment?

                          There were efforts for change and closer working among intelligence organizations. But there is a fundamental problem between FBI and CIA which was where a break down in passing information occurred. The FBI stovepipes its information because they generally are work targets which can be prosecuted for criminal activities. Consequently, they must handle information in their stovepipes as evidence for prosecution. The CIA is more open in passing information but have caveats for protection of sources and methods. Reading a pure intel report, one can determine the source of information. Not massive reorganization, but the creation of a few combined organization for the channel for passing of information.

                          You probably want to do more study in this area, if you want to harden your suppositions.
                          Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

                            I am sure that you are not sure how, because you work from suppositions and do not seem to have worked in the intelligence field, nor have command of information for this period. For example, do you know under the Clinton administration Sudan was on the outs diplomatically, so when they offered their intelligence information on bin Laden who had been operating in their country our intelligence would not take the information--you can find open press article in a back issue of Vanity Fair.

                            How long do you think it takes an organization to change from Soviet analysts to regional/country analysts around the world? And how long do you think it takes an analyst to learn the language (because there is a risk with native speakers), learn all-source collection capabilities, and develop analytic skills and critical judgment?

                            There were efforts for change and closer working among intelligence organizations. But there is a fundamental problem between FBI and CIA which was where a break down in passing information occurred. The FBI stovepipes its information because they generally are work targets which can be prosecuted for criminal activities. Consequently, they must handle information in their stovepipes as evidence for prosecution. The CIA is more open in passing information but have caveats for protection of sources and methods. Reading a pure intel report, one can determine the source of information. Not massive reorganization, but the creation of a few combined organization for the channel for passing of information.

                            You probably want to do more study in this area, if you want to harden your suppositions.
                            My suppositions are based on observable results. if your argument is that it takes time to change a structure, I have no problem with that. But then, is it irrational to challenge the claim that by 1992 there was a working threat model, EXACTLY because it takes time to shift focus and find resources to deal with the post Cold War environment? Then, it is also the issue that the decision to change the structure of the intelligence community did not come up until after 9/11, and this reorganization included new links with new departments, such as that of Homeland Security which was founded after 9/11. I do not expect instant changes in massive bureaucratic organizations, but the lack of a decision to initiate such important changes before 9/11 shows a set of mind that was still unable to adapt to the operational needs of the new reality. And I see this as a problem that existed in the executive branch in general and not as just a failure of the intelligence community specifically. So, I do not know where you see this "working" threat model. Perhaps you mean it was working in academic seminars and lectures, which I cannot dispute since I lack expertise. But my lack of expertise does not prohibit me from seeing the results on the ground. One does not need to attend academic lectures on thermodynamics and internal combustion engines to realize that his car is not working.
                            Last edited by pamak; 15 Jun 18, 18:32.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post

                              I am sure that you are not sure how, because you work from suppositions and do not seem to have worked in the intelligence field, nor have command of information for this period. For example, do you know under the Clinton administration Sudan was on the outs diplomatically, so when they offered their intelligence information on bin Laden who had been operating in their country our intelligence would not take the information--you can find open press article in a back issue of Vanity Fair.

                              How long do you think it takes an organization to change from Soviet analysts to regional/country analysts around the world? And how long do you think it takes an analyst to learn the language (because there is a risk with native speakers), learn all-source collection capabilities, and develop analytic skills and critical judgment?

                              There were efforts for change and closer working among intelligence organizations. But there is a fundamental problem between FBI and CIA which was where a break down in passing information occurred. The FBI stovepipes its information because they generally are work targets which can be prosecuted for criminal activities. Consequently, they must handle information in their stovepipes as evidence for prosecution. The CIA is more open in passing information but have caveats for protection of sources and methods. Reading a pure intel report, one can determine the source of information. Not massive reorganization, but the creation of a few combined organization for the channel for passing of information.

                              You probably want to do more study in this area, if you want to harden your suppositions.
                              My problem with all the experts on this Forum is that none of them ever had their A$$ in the grass the worst thing that the US ever did was getting rid of the draft, nothing teaches one humility than getting your A$$ kicked or a bullet whizzing by over your head, it will change your mind of the way of the world in a hurry!
                              Last edited by Trung Si; 16 Jun 18, 09:41.
                              Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

                                My problem with all the experts on this Forum is that none of them had ever had their A$$ in the grass the worst thing that the US ever did was getting rid of the draft, nothing teaches one humility than getting your A$$ kicked or a bullet whizzing by over your head, it will change your mind of the way of the world in a hurry!
                                That wasn't my job in the Navy. My job was make the ship go and fix it when things broke. Being shot at isn't the only job in the military and the one I did was usually thankless until you were without power, water, heat, air-conditioning, or something else. Then suddenly I was everybody's buddy.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X