(July 19, 2018 at 12:50 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 19, 2018 at 12:29 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: I think it boils down to a couple things:
1) The Russians used to be our biggest enemy. Technically, the Soviet Union was our enemy, but in practice, the Soviet Union was over a dozen smaller countries whose governments were subsumed by Russia.
2) With ISIS falling and our Middle Eastern enemies being a lot more nebulous than they were during the Bush administration, there's a vacuum in our desire to fuck some shit up.
3) Russia is A) acting in ways diametrically opposed to what America is supposed to be for (even if those ideals were just barely honoured by America), B) Powerful enough to potentially be a world superpower again, and C) Actually fairly dangerous, even if the danger hasn't actually reached us.

It's not enough to actually be an enemy; In my post, I specifically called it more of a rival than an enemy, but that distinction seems to be lost on a bunch of people.

1.  Ok
2.  Ok
3.  A) fair enough, B) not a chance.  It has outsized military and intelligence capability for its economic strength because it is a wasting but still present legacy bequeathed by its Soviet past, but its minuscule economy and moribund demographics will prevent it from sustaining a major international role beyond its immediate borders over the long run.  C) yes, but part of the reason why Russia restored some of the abilities lost with the fall of Soviet Union was a visceral sense that the US And NATO has been hell bent on taking over nearby nations that has tradtionally been in its sphere of influence of without which it can not maintain long term territorial security in order to make it permanently impossible for Russia to pursue an independent role in the world.

Yes, what putin has done is really a response to the Clinton and Bush policy from 1992-2008 to strip Russia of her traditional sphere of influence and to meddle in the domestic politics in Russia and nations traditionally in Russia sphere of influence boomeranging back on us.   However, success in international arena does follow from letting my enemy do onto me what I’ve already done to him.   So the fact that we enthusiastically meddled in the domestic politics of Russia and her traditionally satellites is no reason to not retaliate viciously against Russia doing the same to us.

No reason besides Russia still holding onto its nukes, and recently announcing that he has nukes that are for all intents and purposes invincible. Even if that's just a bluff, they still have more nukes than America does, and more than enough to wipe out life as we know it. That would appear to be a good reason to not retaliate viciously against Russia.

Yes, their apparent strength is likely to be unsustainable, but has that ever stopped them before? Scratch that, has it ever stopped America before?

(July 18, 2018 at 8:33 am)vorlon13 Wrote: can't a duly elected President lead the nation in any direction he chooses ??

seems like by definition a president could not commit treason, only his misbehaving subordinates and/or critics could . . .

What are you?  Bucking for a supreme court nomination?


It seems that the lying sack of shit really is a LYING SACK OF SHIT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world...ling-.html

Quote:From the Start, Trump Has Muddied a Clear Message: Putin Interfered

Quote:WASHINGTON — Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.
The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation.
Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed.

No wonder he hates Comey.

Quote:The Jan. 6, 2017, meeting, held at Trump Tower, was a prime example. He was briefed that day by John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director; James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence; and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and the commander of United States Cyber Command.

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was also there; after the formal briefing, he privately told Mr. Trump about the “Steele dossier.” That report, by a former British intelligence officer, included uncorroborated salacious stories of Mr. Trump’s activities during a visit to Moscow, which he denied.

(July 18, 2018 at 8:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: He is more of a real person as much as he is an idiot and arrogant, then Bush, and Obama and Hillary.

Those snakes, are that, snakes that hide their poison. Obama caused more damage to the world and particularly to the middle-east, then any president of US.

I prefer a person like Trump be elected and show his true colors, the snakes like Obama and Hilary, who destroy the world and cause havoc in the land while appearing as if they try to do the opposite.

Yeah, well you'd also prefer the world to go back to the 7th century wher we'd both likely be dead at our ages. Figures you'd pick the dangerous lunatic out to destroy everything he can.

(July 19, 2018 at 1:00 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Yes, their apparent strength is likely to be unsustainable, but has that ever stopped them before?

Yes.

Quote:Scratch that, has it ever stopped America before?

No.

(July 19, 2018 at 7:44 am)Wololo Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 8:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: He is more of a real person as much as he is an idiot and arrogant, then Bush, and Obama and Hillary.

Those snakes, are that, snakes that hide their poison. Obama caused more damage to the world and particularly to the middle-east, then any president of US.

I prefer a person like Trump be elected and show his true colors, the snakes like Obama and Hilary, who destroy the world and cause havoc in the land while appearing as if they try to do the opposite.

Yeah, well you'd also prefer the world to go back to the 7th century wher we'd both likely be dead at our ages.  Figures you'd pick the dangerous lunatic out to destroy everything he can.

@MisticKnight.....

Why are you angry at Obama? Because he killed the monster Bin Laden?

(July 19, 2018 at 1:00 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(July 19, 2018 at 12:50 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: 1.  Ok
2.  Ok
3.  A) fair enough, B) not a chance.  It has outsized military and intelligence capability for its economic strength because it is a wasting but still present legacy bequeathed by its Soviet past, but its minuscule economy and moribund demographics will prevent it from sustaining a major international role beyond its immediate borders over the long run.  C) yes, but part of the reason why Russia restored some of the abilities lost with the fall of Soviet Union was a visceral sense that the US And NATO has been hell bent on taking over nearby nations that has tradtionally been in its sphere of influence of without which it can not maintain long term territorial security in order to make it permanently impossible for Russia to pursue an independent role in the world.

Yes, what putin has done is really a response to the Clinton and Bush policy from 1992-2008 to strip Russia of her traditional sphere of influence and to meddle in the domestic politics in Russia and nations traditionally in Russia sphere of influence boomeranging back on us.   However, success in international arena does follow from letting my enemy do onto me what I’ve already done to him.   So the fact that we enthusiastically meddled in the domestic politics of Russia and her traditionally satellites is no reason to not retaliate viciously against Russia doing the same to us.

No reason besides Russia still holding onto its nukes, and recently announcing that he has nukes that are for all intents and purposes invincible. Even if that's just a bluff, they still have more nukes than America does, and more than enough to wipe out life as we know it. That would appear to be a good reason to not retaliate viciously against Russia.

Yes, their apparent strength is likely to be unsustainable, but has that ever stopped them before? Scratch that, has it ever stopped America before?

Nukes are defensive.   You can’t use nukes to take territory or subvert foreign governments.  Conventional superiority and effective intelligence/covert operation is what it takes to assert global influence.  Nuke simply means Russia can’t be steam rolled militarily even when NATO has overwhelming conventional superiority.  Otherwise nukes don’t allow Russian to do much Russian normally would not be able to to for the lack of its won conventional superiority.

Russia is but a third rate power that can’t be concquereored but which really can’t conquer by force anything beyond what remains of its former sphere of influence, and have no propspect of ever being able to conquer those by force either.

But it does have effective leadership and effective intelligence/cover operation branch that seeks to compensate. That will undoubtedly score a few successes, not the least of which is to take down the US by installing trump. But Russia remains a weak power that would lack the capability to follow up and take full advantage of the openings created.

(July 19, 2018 at 9:34 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Nukes are defensive.   You can’t use nukes to take territory or subvert foreign governments.  Conventional superiority and effective intelligence/covert operation is what it takes to assert global influence.  Nuke simply means Russia can’t be steam rolled militarily even when NATO has overwhelming conventional superiority.  Otherwise nukes don’t allow Russian to do much Russian normally would not be able to to for the lack of its won conventional superiority.

Russia is but a third rate power that can’t be concquereored but which really can’t conquer by force anything beyond what remains of its former sphere of influence, and have no propspect of ever being able to conquer those by force either.

But it does have effective leadership and effective intelligence/cover operation branch that seeks to compensate.  That will undoubtedly score a few successes, not the least of which is to take down the US by installing trump.   But Russia remains a weak power that would lack the capability to follow up and take full advantage of the openings created.

 I can only assume we have two very different ideas of "retaliate viciously", because my understanding of that phrase (namely, war) when applied to Russia/US relations (and Russia's end thereof) would likely have been treated by Russia as defensive.

(July 19, 2018 at 12:29 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(July 19, 2018 at 12:08 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Exactly. You have to be actually at war with someone to commit treason. We aren't at war with Russia. People call them our enemy, but I can't really see why. They are no more or less our enemy than half the countries of the world.

I think it boils down to a couple things:
1) The Russians used to be our biggest enemy. Technically, the Soviet Union was our enemy, but in practice, the Soviet Union was over a dozen smaller countries whose governments were subsumed by Russia.
2) With ISIS falling and our Middle Eastern enemies being a lot more nebulous than they were during the Bush administration, there's a vacuum in our desire to fuck some shit up.
3) Russia is A) acting in ways diametrically opposed to what America is supposed to be for (even if those ideals were just barely honoured by America), B) Powerful enough to potentially be a world superpower again, and C) Actually fairly dangerous, even if the danger hasn't actually reached us.

It's not enough to actually be an enemy; In my post, I specifically called it more of a rival than an enemy, but that distinction seems to be lost on a bunch of people.

Exactly so. But lots of countries are our rivals. Russia isn't special except to old people who don't want to let go of the cold war.

Putin gets a B+ as far as leaders of Russia in the last 100 years.

---

I also believe Trump should be impeached. But not for anything to do with Russia. Watching the American left have heart attacks over all things Russia is truly baffling. The same as watching right wing people ignore or defend Russia.

Personally I think better relations with Russia is better for everyone.

Gonna have to wait for Vlad to have a heart attack, on that count.  The man isn;t interested in better relations with the US, unless..by "better"...you mean a relationship in which the US is significantly weakened and can be counted on to advance the russian feds foreign policy initiatives as a proxy.

You know..like now.

So far Trump has/is...

Increased sanctions on Russia in response to Ukraine.
Deploying missile defense in Poland
Encouraged NATO members to improve their military readiness against possible Russian expansion.
Chastised Germany for making 50% of its energy sector dependent of Russian sources.

The facts simply do not support Trump being weak or deferential to Russia.