(July 18, 2018 at 2:41 pm)mlmooney89 Wrote: I don't think he is a traitor I just think he is self absorbed and thinks differently than I do. Yes that different opinion is horrible in my mind but it's still just an opinion. I don't think he is literally trying to hurt the USA I think he wants to make it how he thinks it should look.

When you trash our intel, trash our allies, trash NATO and the EU, then hold a globally covered summit WITH A DICTATOR, and call handing over our diplomats to that dictator for interrogation an "incredible offer" yes THAT IS TREASON.

(July 19, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 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.

That's a conveniently selective and misleading list, Neo. 

(July 19, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(July 19, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 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.

That's a conveniently selective and misleading list, Neo. 

It’s neo. To him the definition of sweet might as well be the taste of trump’s shit.

(July 18, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Actions speak louder than words. Can anyone point to a specific policy or action of Trump that has been favorable to Russian interests? Just asking a friendly question, not trying to start an argument.

It took a veto-proof act of congress to impose the latest round of sanctions on Russia, and even then Trump procrastinated for months before imposing them, a delay of great value to Putin. Trump would have reduced sanctions if congress hadn't blocked him. Bolton has fired the White House's homeland security advisor and he's been replaced with someone who isn't a cybersecurity expert; and eliminated the cyber coordinator position. Weakening our NATO alliance. Sowing chaos and discord in the USA.

He hasn't been able to give Putin everything he wants. but he's certainly been trying.

(July 19, 2018 at 10:27 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(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.

Retaliate viciously would include:

1. Undercut Russia ability to export energy resources.

2. Deploy troops to anti-russian bastions within former soviet republics and daring the Russians to make a military move

3. Ramp up election interference in pro-Russian states to exponentially increase the cost to Russia of maintaining influences in those area.

4. Arrest of suspected Russian agents and sentencing them to Long prison terms rather than expelling them

5. Harassment of Russia diplomatic personnel

6. Undercutting Russia in arms export.

That actually makes sense, Anom. Not sure that counts as "vicious retaliation," but it does make it less likely that Russia will try to back its words with nuclear weapons.

(July 19, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 18, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Actions speak louder than words. Can anyone point to a specific policy or action of Trump that has been favorable to Russian interests? Just asking a friendly question, not trying to start an argument.

It took a veto-proof act of congress to impose the latest round of sanctions on Russia, and even then Trump procrastinated for months before imposing them, a delay of great value to Putin. Trump would have reduced sanctions if congress hadn't blocked him. Bolton has fired the White House's homeland security advisor and he's been replaced with someone who isn't a cybersecurity expert; and eliminated the cyber coordinator position. Weakening our NATO alliance. Sowing chaos and discord in the USA.

He hasn't been able to give Putin everything he wants. but he's certainly been trying.

Your first point is based in facts so I appreciate that. However, i cannot agree with your last two points which are based primarily on interpretation.

It is true that Trump has been a harsh critic of other NATO members. Why? Because they are not taking their responsibilities to the alliance seriously by maintaining their military readiness to resist Russian aggression. Broken down fighter jets and tanks weaken the alliance, more than internal funding debates.

As for sowing discord, it is true that civil discourse has deteriorated further during his term. The question is whether Trump is the cause or a symptom of deepening internal divisions within the USA that started well before he took office.

I wonder why anyone would want to maintain military readiness against Russia?

Quote:Broken down fighter jets and tanks weaken the alliance, more than internal funding debates.

It is our military readiness that is in question, not NATO's.  The reason for this is actually quite simple.  We keep flying our planes into the ground and deploying soldiers and equipment to pointless "wars"!  The rest of NATO largely avoids that little bit of stupidity.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017...aders.html

Quote:Only three of the Army's 58 Brigade Combat Teams are ready to fight; 53 percent of Navy aircraft can't fly; the Air Force is 723 fighter pilots short; and the Marine Corps needs 3,000 more troops.

"We're just flat-out out of money" to address those immediate needs and provide the additional personnel and maintenance funding to plan for the future, Navy Adm. William Moran said Tuesday in summing up the concerns of four-star officers across the services.

And of course, the Pentagon's answer to everything is "give us more money."  No matter how much they get it is never enough.  In that, they are much like churches.

(July 19, 2018 at 1:27 pm)Shell B Wrote: I wonder why anyone would want to maintain military readiness against Russia?

I believe mostly to protect the Baltic states who, as I understand, consider themselves vulnerable to annexation. Many Polish people in Chicago with whom I've spoke also express serious concerns about Russia. Maybe the population still in Poland are less concerned.