TPS Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Are you !@#$ing drunk? What could we do with ground forces against China? If we ever get in a war with them expect large booms and mushroom clouds, not charging up their version of San Juan Hill.You have a pretty simplistic view of "war". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 You have a pretty simplistic view of "war". "I lean toward the analysis that any new surge there is more a ruse to build up a force that can be used to stymie China in the near future." Then explain what you meant by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 "I lean toward the analysis that any new surge there is more a ruse to build up a force that can be used to stymie China in the near future." Then explain what you meant by this. I certainly don't see a "war" in your sense ever happening between the US and Russia/China. One would think anything that would move in that direction would cause one of the idiots in charge to push "the button." Instead, what we see are "proxy wars" or other threats used as an excuse to position US troops to counter the growing power of mainly China and Russia to a lesser extent. For example, the US and Russia are in a proxy war in Syria; the "threat" from North Korea is being used as an excuse to put a missile defense system in South Korea with its real target China, most likely. I hope you don't think we go to countries for humanitarian reasons or to support democracy? Fomenting uprisings and coups is another form of a proxy war, and Ukraine is a good example of that. I posted some articles in this thread about the "Great Game." If you did not read them, you should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 sure, the chance of "winning" Iraq is greater than winning Afghanistan, but the latter is near zero. I have to believe the US military leaders are not that stupid? Except that 1) the military leaders have been subject to a ridiculous civilian policy of "Exporting Democracy" since the Kennedy administration, and 2) the military leaders still adhere to a largely Clausewitzian model of warfare (thus, "Mission Accomplished"), and if they're not blind to anything else, they at least have severe cataracts. I lean toward the analysis that any new surge there is more a ruse to build up a force that can be used to stymie China in the near future. That would make even less sense. A maritime power playing the Great Game with a continental power in a landlocked country where all LOCs are, at best, iffy? At least the British had India. We've got...Pakistan? "I lean toward the analysis that any new surge there is more a ruse to build up a force that can be used to stymie China in the near future." Then explain what you meant by this. Where in any of that did he say "war?" Google "Great Game." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 In light of today's events, this drop last week suddenly seems (possibly) relevant: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-huma-abedin-emails-reveal-additional-instances-clinton-sending-receiving-classified-emails-unsecure-server/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 That would make even less sense. A maritime power playing the Great Game with a continental power in a landlocked country where all LOCs are, at best, iffy? At least the British had India. We've got...Pakistan? Not sure if I posted the article here or not, but it suggested that the US would try to support the uyghurs and create instability for China in a region where they are building infrastructure for the new "silk road." I'm pretty sure the military bases in Afghanistan are the most proximate for that purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Not sure if I posted the article here or not, but it suggested that the US would try to support the uyghurs and create instability for China in a region where they are building infrastructure for the new "silk road." I'm pretty sure the military bases in Afghanistan are the most proximate for that purpose. The only reason I find that believable is because it fits the "long-term goals without long-term planning" paradigm that State and Defense come up with when they put their heads together and mistake the resulting hollow-coconut sound for a sensible idea. And I find it really believable, because it fits that paradigm so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 Trump's upcoming meeting schedule after firing Comey: Lavrov - immediately followed by a second sit down with... Kissenger (who has been working hard to bring Russia closer to the US and away from China as he desperately scrambles for relevance). Then later this month the Trump show hits the road for stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Vatican. He's trolling hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Trump's upcoming meeting schedule after firing Comey: Lavrov - immediately followed by a second sit down with... Kissenger (who has been working hard to bring Russia closer to the US and away from China as he desperately scrambles for relevance). 2012 called, they want their foreign policy back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) 2012 called, they want their foreign policy back... Even Lavrov is getting in on the trolling: (Opening statement today) Reporter: Does the Comey firing case a shadow of (sic) your talks, gentleman? Lavrov: Was he fired? Reporter: Yes. Lavrov: You are kidding. You are kidding. https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/270772.htm His head shake at the end as he walked away made me roll. Edited May 10, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Even Lavrov is getting in on the trolling: (Opening statement today) Reporter: Does the Comey firing case a shadow of (sic) your talks, gentleman? Lavrov: Was he fired? Reporter: Yes. Lavrov: You are kidding. You are kidding. https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/270772.htm His head shake at the end as he walked away made me roll. And watching them walk out...I was shocked at how much the two of them look like walking stereotypes: the guy on the left, with the cropped hair, receding hairline, wire-rimmed glasses and square face looks like a stereotypical oil tycoon; and the guy on the right, with the squinty glare, round face, white hair, and bushy eyebrows looks like a stereotypical party apparatchik from the Cold War years. Then Tillerson spoke and I realized I had them backwards: each looks like the other's stereotype. Are we just living in bizarro-world since the election? If gatorman suddenly starts making sense, I'm slitting my wrists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 And watching them walk out...I was shocked at how much the two of them look like walking stereotypes: the guy on the left, with the cropped hair, receding hairline, wire-rimmed glasses and square face looks like a stereotypical oil tycoon; and the guy on the right, with the squinty glare, round face, white hair, and bushy eyebrows looks like a stereotypical party apparatchik from the Cold War years. Then Tillerson spoke and I realized I had them backwards: each looks like the other's stereotype. Are we just living in bizarro-world since the election? If gatorman suddenly starts making sense, I'm slitting my wrists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 And watching them walk out...I was shocked at how much the two of them look like walking stereotypes: the guy on the left, with the cropped hair, receding hairline, wire-rimmed glasses and square face looks like a stereotypical oil tycoon; and the guy on the right, with the squinty glare, round face, white hair, and bushy eyebrows looks like a stereotypical party apparatchik from the Cold War years. Then Tillerson spoke and I realized I had them backwards: each looks like the other's stereotype. Are we just living in bizarro-world since the election? If gatorman suddenly starts making sense, I'm slitting my wrists. another indication of the new bizarro world, I had to go back 5 entire pages before finding a post where you called someone an idiot. Are you okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 another indication of the new bizarro world, I had to go back 5 entire pages before finding a post where you called someone an idiot. Are you okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Even Lavrov is getting in on the trolling: (Opening statement today) Reporter: Does the Comey firing case a shadow of (sic) your talks, gentleman? Lavrov: Was he fired? Reporter: Yes. Lavrov: You are kidding. You are kidding. https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/270772.htm His head shake at the end as he walked away made me roll. Are they obligated to do those weird 'face the cameras and make a nonstatement without answering questions' type appearances? I mean, it's public record once they're admitted as a guest, right...what's to be gained from publicizing the meeting at all, albeit in the most perfunctory of ways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 Are they obligated to do those weird 'face the cameras and make a nonstatement without answering questions' type appearances? I mean, it's public record once they're admitted as a guest, right...what's to be gained from publicizing the meeting at all, albeit in the most perfunctory of ways? Pomp and Circumstance has been a part of statesmanship and politics since the Greeks. This is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Pomp and Circumstance has been a part of statesmanship and politics since the Greeks. This is no different. So now we've got Dick Durbin vs. Sarah Isgur Flores on whether or not Comey actually was trying to expand funding for the investigation into Trump&Associates/Russia...who've you got? More importantly, is Comey really so dumb as to ask a newly-minted mini-Sessions Trumpite in Rosenstein for more money to investigate Russia, or did he realize he was going down with the ship and wanted as much on record as possible for the next director to go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 (edited) So now we've got Dick Durbin vs. Sarah Isgur Flores on whether or not Comey actually was trying to expand funding for the investigation into Trump&Associates/Russia...who've you got? More importantly, is Comey really so dumb as to ask a newly-minted mini-Sessions Trumpite in Rosenstein for more money to investigate Russia, or did he realize he was going down with the ship and wanted as much on record as possible for the next director to go on? Personally I doubt very much this decision had anything to do with the Russian investigation. I've been saying for months now that it's smoke and mirrors more than anything substantive - while remaining open to changing my mind if and when actual evidence surfaced. So far, none has. And we're almost a year in. Every piece of evidence proffered so far about collusion has been unnamed sources citing classified material we'll never see - all coming from sources with skin in the game. If there was more than smoke, we would have seen it by now. Instead, we've seen everyone from Clapper, to Brenner, to Feinstein come out and say there is no evidence of collusion. This was a move planned well before yesterday and, if I were to bet, it has far more to do with other subjects touched on in this thread than it does Russia. Edited May 10, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Personally I doubt very much this decision had anything to do with the Russian investigation. I've been saying for months now that it's smoke and mirrors more than anything substantive - while remaining open to changing my mind if and when actual evidence surfaced. So far, none has. And we're almost a year in. Every piece of evidence proffered so far about collusion has been unnamed sources citing classified material we'll never see - all coming from sources with skin in the game. If there was more than smoke, we would have seen it by now. Instead, we've seen everyone from Clapper, to Brenner, to Feinstein come out and say there is no evidence of collusion. This was a move planned well before yesterday and, if I were to bet, it has far more to do with other subjects touched on in this thread than it does Russia. If you're talking about Clapper's original statement, yesterday he testified to the Judiciary subcommittee that he wasn't even aware of the FBI investigation when he made his 'no evidence of collusion' claim. And Yates' additional testimony made it pretty clear (to me at least) that there's enough evidence about Russian/Trump influence to warrant real concern about the removal of Comey and possible shuttering of their inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 If you're talking about Clapper's original statement, yesterday he testified to the Judiciary subcommittee that he wasn't even aware of the FBI investigation when he made his 'no evidence of collusion' claim. And Yates' additional testimony made it pretty clear (to me at least) that there's enough evidence about Russian/Trump influence to warrant real concern about the removal of Comey and possible shuttering of their inquiry. What evidence of collusion has been presented that is NOT couched in unnamed sources citing unnamed methods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts