Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Mar 2018, 8:12 am

Fate
We had a Democratic President who was aware of Russian activity and did nothing


If you say what his administration did wasn't effective, that would be accurate.
Do say they did nothing is a Trumpian type lie.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/58761404 ... ce-in-2016

Since much of what the Administration could have done would have been perceived as partisan during an election, it would have taken a bi-partisan effort. And how did that go?

Former Vice President Joe Biden also has complained that the White House wanted Republicans to join in a bipartisan statement announcing and condemning the interference campaign. In Biden's telling, however, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wouldn't go along.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Mar 2018, 8:54 am

freeman3 wrote:Bad policy is not the same as treating a foreign country extremely favorably in order to further one's own political and financial interests.

We'll see who is howling at the moon in 8 months with Republicans crushed for putting a clown in the White House whose major foreign policy goal is to help out Russia as much as he can.


Uh-huh.

Image
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Mar 2018, 1:58 pm

Getting back to Danivon's original question, and ignoring Trump for a few brief seconds, yes, Russia is just as evil as the former Soviet Union. Those who snickered when Reagan described it that way must now realize he was right then. When Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat there were more snickers.

The UK, along with its allies, should ratchet up the pressure as much as possible. This should include expelling diplomats, arming the periphery where threatened, sanctions, and especially hitting the oligarchs, including Putin on a personal level, with as much economic pressure as possible.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Mar 2018, 6:11 pm

I don't see how Trump can be ignored. As long as our president is Trump there will be zero leadership from the US in containing Russia.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Mar 2018, 6:38 pm

freeman3 wrote:I don't see how Trump can be ignored. As long as our president is Trump there will be zero leadership from the US in containing Russia.


As opposed to the fierce containment Mr. “More Flexibility After the Election” put on Putin?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Mar 2018, 8:54 pm

Oh...Putin didn't like the sanctions that got put on Russia after their intervention in the Crimea. Not at all. In fact...those sanctions might have been what caused Putin to start cyber warfare against the US and interfere in the US election. You might try and accuse Obama of being soft on Russia (but remember all Republicans had to do to be tough on Russia was to authorize a major strike on Syria that Obama proposed--at least far more significant than the little pinprick Trump did; but Republicans were much more interested in a cheap political win.)

In any case, Obama was acting in good faith, doing what he thought was in US interests. You have to have blinders on to think Trump is doing the same...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Mar 2018, 9:12 pm

freeman3 wrote:Oh...Putin didn't like the sanctions that got put on Russia after their intervention in the Crimea. Not at all. In fact...those sanctions might have been what caused Putin to start cyber warfare against the US and interfere in the US election. You might try and accuse Obama of being soft on Russia (but remember all Republicans had to do to be tough on Russia was to authorize a major strike on Syria that Obama proposed--at least far more significant than the little pinprick Trump did; but Republicans were much more interested in a cheap political win.)

In any case, Obama was acting in good faith, doing what he thought was in US interests. You have to have blinders on to think Trump is doing the same...


1. “Tell Vlad I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”
2. Russian reset.
3. Did NOTHING when he knew Russia WAS in fact interfering in our election. Didn’t even say anything.
4. Obama was too much of a weasel to make the strike himself. He all but invited Putin into Syria.

#greatmomentsinObamaAppeasement
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Mar 2018, 7:23 am

Fate
3. Did NOTHING when he knew Russia WAS in fact interfering in our election. Didn’t even say anything.

repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/58761404 ... ce-in-2016

If he had acted on his own to a great degree he would have been accussed of interfering in the election himself.
Hence the attempt to get a bipartisan approach, which failed.

Former Vice President Joe Biden also has complained that the White House wanted Republicans to join in a bipartisan statement announcing and condemning the interference campaign. In Biden's telling, however, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wouldn't go along


Fate
4. Obama was too much of a weasel to make the strike himself. He all but invited Putin into Syria

How effective has anything Trump has done been?
Wasn't his dropping of a large bomb on a deserted Syrian air field supposed to get the Syrians and Russians in line? Instead they continue to use chemical weapons, barrel bombs etc.
Should Trump be launching a material action against Syria? Should he commit 100,000 troops to another invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern nation? This time one with Russians in place?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Mar 2018, 8:18 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
3. Did NOTHING when he knew Russia WAS in fact interfering in our election. Didn’t even say anything.

repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/58761404 ... ce-in-2016


You hacked up the link. Nicely done.

If he had acted on his own to a great degree he would have been accussed of interfering in the election himself.
Hence the attempt to get a bipartisan approach, which failed.


Obama couldn’t feed a goat, let alone lead a bipartisan effort.

Your article, if I found it, shows Obama did nothing, other than Jeh Johnson complaining to Russia about it. I’m sure that scared Putin!

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/58761404 ... ce-in-2016

From the link:

Obama scaled back missile defense plans in Europe to placate Moscow.
Obama wanted Russia to play a role in the international agreement under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear program — and Putin went along.
Obama spent the end of his presidency trying to bring Russia into a multilateral agreement to end the Syrian civil war, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ultimately never committed.


Yeah, that’s about right. And, the Iran deal is a fiasco.

Former Vice President Joe Biden also has complained that the White House wanted Republicans to join in a bipartisan statement announcing and condemning the interference campaign. In Biden's telling, however, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wouldn't go along


Oh, well, we MUST accept what a demonstrable liar says.

What concrete steps did Obama take when he found out the Russians were actively interfering? Be specific.

Fate
4. Obama was too much of a weasel to make the strike himself. He all but invited Putin into Syria

How effective has anything Trump has done been?


What does that have to do with what Obama didn’t do? Answer: nothing. This is just more of your type of “argumentation.” You can’t defend Obama, so you want me to justify Trump.

And, in case you haven’t noticed, the Islamic Caliphate ain’t what it was under Obama, at least in terms of territory.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Mar 2018, 3:21 pm

Dr. Fate
What does that have to do with what Obama didn’t do?


You claimed Trump would do better. Has he? How?
How'd his bombing of an empty Syrian airfield affect Syrian use of Chemical weapons or bombing of civilians?
He's had more than a year. How have things improved?
If they haven't (and they sure as hell haven't) then how valid is your criticism of Obama's failings?

Perhaps the situation doesn't have easy answers. I'm certain Trump is in the White House mumbling
"Who knew the Syria thing was so complicated ?"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Mar 2018, 4:04 pm

rickyp wrote:Dr. Fate
What does that have to do with what Obama didn’t do?


You claimed Trump would do better. Has he? How?


He has failed to throw roses at Putin's feet. That's an improvement.

What I actually said was a potted plant could not do worse than Obama. That's not bragging about the plant.

How'd his bombing of an empty Syrian airfield affect Syrian use of Chemical weapons or bombing of civilians?


Do you want to go there on Syria?

Obama drew a red line. Failed to enforce it.

Obama invited Putin in.

Obama wrung his hands about ISIS.

Trump has been a mild improvement. So what?

He's had more than a year. How have things improved?
If they haven't (and they sure as hell haven't) then how valid is your criticism of Obama's failings?


ISIS under Obama:

Revealed - how the threat of ISIS is spreading: Extremist group has DOUBLED the land it controls in just a few months despite more than 800 coalition airstrikes

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z5AErFwbMN


ISIS under Trump:

The US-led coalition against so-called Islamic State (IS) says 98% of territory once claimed by the jihadist group across Iraq and Syria has been recaptured.

Iraq's government announced in December that its war against IS was over, almost four years after the group first seized parts of the country.


ISIS, since you will undoubtedly object, was headquartered in Syrian territory.

An intensive aerial bombardment by the US-led coalition helped secure victory in Raqqa for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which was formed in 2015 by the the Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG) militia and a number of smaller, Arab factions. Since early June, coalition planes have carried out almost 4,000 air strikes on the city.


Perhaps the situation doesn't have easy answers. I'm certain Trump is in the White House mumbling
"Who knew the Syria thing was so complicated ?"


Nah, he's probably wondering how Obama ever got elected. What a disaster.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Mar 2018, 2:03 pm

Fate
ISIS under Trump:


BS. Trump did nothing different from Obama. If Obama had remained President the same result would have ocurred.
In August 2016, Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, who was the ground commander for the fight against ISIS, said the US-led coalition had killed an estimated 45,000 ISIS fighters.
About a year later, at the Aspen Security Forum in July 2017, the commander of the US Special Operations Command, Gen. Raymond "Tony" Thomas, said that an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 ISIS fighters had been killed since the US-led campaign against the terror group began in August 2014.
Ergo, according to these senior US military officials, the bulk of ISIS fighters were killed during the pre-Trump period.
That shouldn't be too surprising. After all, the campaign to eradicate ISIS began two and a half years before Trump assumed office.
The operation to take back Mosul, the second-largest city in Iraq where ISIS had first declared its "caliphate," began in October 2016 while President Barack Obama was still in office and had been long-planned.
Shortly after the Mosul operation was launched, Gen. Joseph Votel, the commander of US Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Syria, told me: "We have been doing preparatory stuff against Raqqa and Mosul for a long time, long before we said, 'the assault on Mosul has begun.' We have taken out 36 ISIS leaders in the Mosul area; to me that is part of the preparation phase."
Under Obama, ISIS also lost significant Iraqi cities such as Falluja, Ramadi and Tikrit.
To be sure, Trump loosened the "rules of engagement" for the US military, enabling ground commanders to more easily carry out operations without having to seek permission up the chain of command, but these are tactical changes -- not strategic game changers
.
From Peter Bergen.Oct 2017.

Fate
He has failed to throw roses at Putin's feet. That's an improvement

Hard to throw roses from so far up his ass.
But he did send him congratulations on his phony electoral victory today.
An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.” McCain, the Armed Services Committee chairman, also says that by doing so Trump has “insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election to determine their country’s future.”


Fate
Do you want to go there on Syria?

Yes.
What exactly has Trump done that has been so effective in Syria?
In addition to yet more destruction, division, and chaos, it’s unclear what the United States stands to achieve in Syria. Nevertheless, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Pentagon recently announced that, just as in Iraq, US troops would stay in Syria after the final defeat of ISIS. On the subject, a Pentagon spokesperson was quite emphatic: “We are going to maintain our commitment on the ground as long as we need to, to support our partners and prevent the return of terrorist groups.” In other words, the US military will remain there until when exactly? Long enough for the civil war to end and liberal democracy to burst forth in the Syrian countryside?


https://www.thenation.com/article/there ... rom-obama/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Mar 2018, 2:42 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
ISIS under Trump:


BS. Trump did nothing different from Obama. If Obama had remained President the same result would have ocurred.
In August 2016, Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, who was the ground commander for the fight against ISIS, said the US-led coalition had killed an estimated 45,000 ISIS fighters.
About a year later, at the Aspen Security Forum in July 2017, the commander of the US Special Operations Command, Gen. Raymond "Tony" Thomas, said that an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 ISIS fighters had been killed since the US-led campaign against the terror group began in August 2014.
Ergo, according to these senior US military officials, the bulk of ISIS fighters were killed during the pre-Trump period.
That shouldn't be too surprising. After all, the campaign to eradicate ISIS began two and a half years before Trump assumed office.
The operation to take back Mosul, the second-largest city in Iraq where ISIS had first declared its "caliphate," began in October 2016 while President Barack Obama was still in office and had been long-planned.
Shortly after the Mosul operation was launched, Gen. Joseph Votel, the commander of US Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Syria, told me: "We have been doing preparatory stuff against Raqqa and Mosul for a long time, long before we said, 'the assault on Mosul has begun.' We have taken out 36 ISIS leaders in the Mosul area; to me that is part of the preparation phase."
Under Obama, ISIS also lost significant Iraqi cities such as Falluja, Ramadi and Tikrit.
To be sure, Trump loosened the "rules of engagement" for the US military, enabling ground commanders to more easily carry out operations without having to seek permission up the chain of command, but these are tactical changes -- not strategic game changers
.
From Peter Bergen.Oct 2017.

Fate
He has failed to throw roses at Putin's feet. That's an improvement

Hard to throw roses from so far up his ass.
But he did send him congratulations on his phony electoral victory today.
An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections.” McCain, the Armed Services Committee chairman, also says that by doing so Trump has “insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election to determine their country’s future.”


Fate
Do you want to go there on Syria?

Yes.
What exactly has Trump done that has been so effective in Syria?
In addition to yet more destruction, division, and chaos, it’s unclear what the United States stands to achieve in Syria. Nevertheless, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Pentagon recently announced that, just as in Iraq, US troops would stay in Syria after the final defeat of ISIS. On the subject, a Pentagon spokesperson was quite emphatic: “We are going to maintain our commitment on the ground as long as we need to, to support our partners and prevent the return of terrorist groups.” In other words, the US military will remain there until when exactly? Long enough for the civil war to end and liberal democracy to burst forth in the Syrian countryside?


https://www.thenation.com/article/there ... rom-obama/


Let's see . . . Bergen . . . The Nation . . . yes, great sources.

You remind me of an old adage: never mud wrestle a pig, you'll only get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Mar 2018, 6:38 am

fate
[quoteLet's see . . . Bergen . . . The Nation . . . yes, great sources][/quote]s

I thought they made the case....Bergen quoted and documented the US Generals in the theatre. The Nation quoted General Mattis.


You've offered nothing but your own unsupported blithering.
Somewhat similar to Trump, you make up facts and when challenged to support the unsupportable you divert with nonsense.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Mar 2018, 7:28 am

rickyp wrote:fate
[quoteLet's see . . . Bergen . . . The Nation . . . yes, great sources]
s

I thought they made the case....Bergen quoted and documented the US Generals in the theatre. The Nation quoted General Mattis.


You've offered nothing but your own unsupported blithering.
Somewhat similar to Trump, you make up facts and when challenged to support the unsupportable you divert with nonsense.[/quote]

Nope. I’ve provided plenty of facts. It’s not my fault you worship Obama.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trum ... r-deadline

Your left-wing sources edit what they put out. They shape the news.

If you want to believe Obama was tough on Russia, well, keep smoking whatever you’re smoking.