Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:35 am

It appears that US foreign policy is about to take a 180° turn from what it has been since the collapse of the SU. As I see it, the US policy decisions that were made after the SU collapse were quite cynical; after 45 years of eye gouging mud wrestling with the Russians, US policymakers, especially the military policymakers, seem to have taken the view that the collapse was just a temporary glitch in an ongoing competition: the abandonment of their stated goal of overthrowing the west would certainly soon be replaced with equally heinous behavior in some other form. A study of Russian history informs us that Russia has always been hostile towards the west after all. In the years after the collapse I was taken aback by the harsh decisions made in the west; I thought extending NATO to Eastern Europe was overreach and confrontational, but I had to temper my judgement on that, based on the fact that the hardliners might just be right - the collapse of the SU might best be seen as just a stumble on the part of a ruthless adversary who we might yet wind up in a shooting war with. And I was aware that the cynical response to the SU collapse would very likely have the effect of pushing Russia into hostility. I was bothered by that as I suspect were many others, but there was nothing to do about it, the decisions had been made, it seemed that all anyone could do was to watch and see how things turned out.

It came to be for me that Putin affirmed all the hardliners assumptions, the assassinations, the apartment bombings, the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the shooting down of an airliner full of people, the resurrection of their nuclear force, the divisive nature of their actions with Iran and in Syria.

Then comes Trump who appears to be dead set on a course to weaken or break the US ties with Europe and in some fashion to bring the US to a buddy buddy relationship with Putin's Russia. An odder odd couple is hard to imagine. And what of Europe?

It seems to me that Trump is well poised to make himself famous all over the globe, and to make his family princes and princesses in a new world order, but will he be trashing the United States and Europe in the process? Will it turn out in the end that Putin's Russia is on effectively the same course as the old SU, with dismantling Europe and castrating the US as the primary policy goals?

What do some of the other people here think about this?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7280
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:11 am

In some ways Trump is right, The US almost solely carries NATO on its back, and Europe does need to pick up some slack. And I don't see how warming relations with someone that has been historically hostile to us is bad. Russia is rich in minerals and oil and timber. In fact, the CIA even made a front to buy titanium from the USSR to make the SR-71!

I don't think we would become best friends with Russia, but we do need a better relationship with them.

Lastly, the Soviet Union had the capability and finances to start a shooting war and to invade everyone. Today's Russia has the capability (that's not just something you forget how to do), but not the financial means to start and intercontinental war.

No one is going to invade Europe, the US and Russia aren't going to nuke each other. I disagree a lot with Trump, but making better relations with the only other nation that could be a Superpower (besides China, and India if they get their stuff together) is a good thing.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:21 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Lastly, the Soviet Union had the capability and finances to start a shooting war and to invade everyone.
In what year? You're talking about successful invasions of central Europe - right?

TWA772LR wrote:
No one is going to invade Europe
Russia already has - Ukraine.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2976
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:35 am

salttee wrote:
It appears that US foreign policy is about to take a 180° turn from what it has been since the collapse of the SU. As I see it, the US policy decisions that were made after the SU collapse were quite cynical; after 45 years of eye gouging mud wrestling with the Russians, US policymakers, especially the military policymakers, seem to have taken the view that the collapse was just a temporary glitch in an ongoing competition: the abandonment of their stated goal of overthrowing the west would certainly soon be replaced with equally heinous behavior in some other form.

That idea wasn't completely unfounded however. The communists of the Soviet government didn't just disappear and rather remained embedded in the new government. There was no revolution unfortunately that swept away the old governing elite...nor did the Soviet Union really fall due to loss of popular support, they just went bankrupt and the old system could no longer function. The views/attitudes of the Soviet Union remained however, as evidenced by Russia's failure to adopt a market economy and create durable democratic institutions.

salttee wrote:
I thought extending NATO to Eastern Europe was overreach and confrontational, but I had to temper my judgement on that, based on the fact that the hardliners might just be right - the collapse of the SU might best be seen as just a stumble on the part of a ruthless adversary who we might yet wind up in a shooting war with.

I don't know that I'd call it overreach or confrontational. Looking at NATO from an American perspective I can see where that impression might come from...after all, what strategic importance is there of Poland and Estonia to the US really. But NATO (at least on paper) isn't supposed to be just an American endeavor, but a joint venture with Western Europe who relies on it as much as America does. So, to Western Europe a prosperous and free Eastern Europe is unquestionably in their interest. And obviously if I were Estonia or Poland, I would have been falling over myself to join NATO, too. I'd say it's been effective to date, as Estonia, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania are now all enjoying their largest stints of independence.

salttee wrote:
It came to be for me that Putin affirmed all the hardliners assumptions, the assassinations, the apartment bombings, the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the shooting down of an airliner full of people, the resurrection of their nuclear force, the divisive nature of their actions with Iran and in Syria.

Don't forget his invasion and occupation of Georgia.

salttee wrote:
Then comes Trump who appears to be dead set on a course to weaken or break the US ties with Europe and in some fashion to bring the US to a buddy buddy relationship with Putin's Russia. An odder odd couple is hard to imagine. And what of Europe?

I think it's too early to say at this point. I know there's been a lot of speculation and behind-the-scenes talk, but until we actually start seeing actual policy positions laid out or actions taken, we won't know. It'll be intriguing to watch to say the least.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:55 am

flyguy89 wrote:
...after all, what strategic importance is there of Poland and Estonia to the US really.
I saw it as moving the forward edge of battle almost 500 miles east if there were ever to be a real war: making the wheat fields of Poland be the dumping ground for the tactical nukes. I think that's how the hardliners saw it too.
flyguy89 wrote:
I think it's too early to say at this point. I know there's been a lot of speculation and behind-the-scenes talk, but until we actually start seeing actual policy positions laid out or actions taken, we won't know. It'll be intriguing to watch to say the least.
I think that everyone should start paying real close attention to what's going on here. As if Trump is taking us on a journey into a bad neighborhood while we're wearing a gold watch. This makes me nervous.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9632
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:09 am

It would be nice to thee Trump accept Russia as a global power and if the US stops supporting the socialist states of Europe with NATO a lot of money can be saved.
 
Airstud
Posts: 4885
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:41 am

salttee wrote:
A discussion of Russia


Discussia!!!!!
Pancakes are delicious.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:22 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
Don't forget his invasion and occupation of Georgia.


You mean that retaliatory action that stopped Mr Saakashvili's terror attack on Russian enclaves under US guidance :-)
( and to some part kicked of to give the GOP a boost in the upcoming election.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:58 pm

A few thoughts on it.

As for the expansion of NATO, you have to remember that nations in Eastern Europe have long, bitter memories of domination by the Soviet Union following World War II They were walled off from the world. Much of their infrastructure remained in rubble following the war. With Stalin refusing The Marshall Plan, most were economic wastelands for 50 years. They remember the repression, and they won't forget it any time soon. So it was only natural, as far as I'm concerned, that nations like Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and others, wanted NATO membership. On the other side of the coin, I can see Russia's concern over that migration Westward. They once had a wall of nations between them and the "Western Powers", being mostly The U.K., France, Germany and the United States. That has been stripped away. So from that point I understand their concerns.

But Putin has made things worse with his aggressive, USSR-like policy of going after other nations on its border, like Ukraine. It's looking for a buffer, but they have been there and tried that in the past, it didn't work out so well.

As for the relations that we'll have under this man who has been elected here, I see it as almost a sell-out. He's cozied up to Putin in every regard. He has signaled that he may not honor our NATO commitments. He's further signaled he doesn't have much of a problem with Russia's actions in the Crimea or Ukraine. He just picked a SecState nominee who has massive financial ties in Russia. And he himself has massive business connections in Russia.

He's more interested in how relations with Russia can profit for him, with little regard to what will happen to U.S. relations with that important nation. He's said he'll dump all his business interests, but I don't trust a single word out of his mouth. He'll somehow keep control, and he'll make a fortune in cash, all the while giving Russia a freer hand in Eastern Europe.

Russia might think they'll have it good with this man as President, but I think more and more even Republicans are realizing what a buffoon the soon-to-be POTUS is, and see his ignorance towards the region is deathly dangerous to the United States. Much of what he wants to do will be blocked even by Republicans in Congress.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:50 pm

Hillis wrote:
Russia might think they'll have it good with this man as President, but I think more and more even Republicans are realizing what a buffoon the soon-to-be POTUS is, and see his ignorance towards the region is deathly dangerous to the United States. Much of what he wants to do will be blocked even by Republicans in Congress.


What about people who don't live in Russia? Doesn't it matter to you that Trump's unwillingness to wake war in the Middle East is likely going to save hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives? Are their lives worth less than the well-being of the American military industry to you?

Facts are these: The foreign policy of the US for past decades has been an utter disaster as far as world peace goes. It led to the rise of ISIS, and together with its allies the US has caused chaos in Libya and significantly worsened the war in Syria. Without western support to Islamist rebels it's likely Assad would have won a long time ago already, and potentially over 300 000 lives would have been saved.

Putin is no angel, but his actions are NOTHING when it comes to their total impact on world peace. The conflicts Russia has caused haven't killed even 1% of the amount of people killed in Iraq alone.

salttee wrote:
It seems to me that Trump is well poised to make himself famous all over the globe, and to make his family princes and princesses in a new world order, but will he be trashing the United States and Europe in the process? Will it turn out in the end that Putin's Russia is on effectively the same course as the old SU, with dismantling Europe and castrating the US as the primary policy goals?


News flash: You can't trash something that is already trashed by Merkel & Co. Me and many, many more EU citizen would gladly see this stupid project of the elite being dismantled for good so our lives would suck less in the future. All the EU has given us are economic problems and forced multiculturalism.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:03 pm

pvjin wrote:
Hillis wrote:
Russia might think they'll have it good with this man as President, but I think more and more even Republicans are realizing what a buffoon the soon-to-be POTUS is, and see his ignorance towards the region is deathly dangerous to the United States. Much of what he wants to do will be blocked even by Republicans in Congress.


What about people who don't live in Russia? Doesn't it matter to you that Trump's unwillingness to wake war in the Middle East is likely going to save hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives? Are their lives worth less than the well-being of the American military industry to you?


His what? His UNWILLINGNESS? Maybe you missed the part where he wants to increase tensions with Iran. Maybe you missed the part where he said he wants to "bomb the shit" out of Syria? He wants more war in the region, not less. Where have you been?
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:13 pm

Hillis wrote:
His what? His UNWILLINGNESS? Maybe you missed the part where he wants to increase tensions with Iran. Maybe you missed the part where he said he wants to "bomb the shit" out of Syria? He wants more war in the region, not less. Where have you been?
He also appears to want to bundle ISIS with the rest of the Islamic world. Whatever he does with the Sunnis it doesn't look like he's headed on a path toward peace. It's hard to see how that's going to play out, we'll just have to wait and see.

The Issue of Iran and Trump is a conundrum, Trump wants to buddy up with Russia and demonize Iran at the same time. Currently Russia and Iran are allies; Russia has given Iran assistance apparently both above board and surreptitiously with their home built air defense missile systems and within the last year has broken new ground by giving Iran complete SA-300 missile systems (it is unknown if Iran had to pay for them.) At the same time, the US has given (and is scheduled to give away many more) F-35s to Israel.

It's impossible to predict how that story will develop, but it seems probable that there will be a test of the matchup between the SA-300 and the F35 in the future.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:28 pm

Hillis wrote:
His what? His UNWILLINGNESS? Maybe you missed the part where he wants to increase tensions with Iran. Maybe you missed the part where he said he wants to "bomb the shit" out of Syria? He wants more war in the region, not less. Where have you been?


No, I see the part where he's planning to do more co-operation with Putin in Syria, and wants to stop supporting anti-Assad Islamist rebels.

salttee wrote:
He also appears to want to bundle ISIS with the rest of the Islamic world. Whatever he does with the Sunnis it doesn't look like he's headed on a path toward peace. It's hard to see how that's going to play out, we'll just have to wait and see.


Those who pretend ISIS doesn't have connections to the rest of the Islamic world are liars. ISIS has a lot in common ideologically with KSA and Qatar. Whatever he does, I don't see how he could possibly do more harm to world peace than previous presidents did by supporting KSA, Qatar and their Wahhabist ideology which is also behind ISIS.

Admittedly I don't agree with Trump's stance towards Iran, I think United States should seek Iran as an ally against KSA, Qatar and ISIS.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:46 pm

pvjin wrote:
Hillis wrote:
His what? His UNWILLINGNESS? Maybe you missed the part where he wants to increase tensions with Iran. Maybe you missed the part where he said he wants to "bomb the shit" out of Syria? He wants more war in the region, not less. Where have you been?


No, I see the part where he's planning to do more co-operation with Putin in Syria, and wants to stop supporting anti-Assad Islamist rebels.

salttee wrote:
He also appears to want to bundle ISIS with the rest of the Islamic world. Whatever he does with the Sunnis it doesn't look like he's headed on a path toward peace. It's hard to see how that's going to play out, we'll just have to wait and see.


Those who pretend ISIS doesn't have connections to the rest of the Islamic world are liars. ISIS has a lot in common ideologically with KSA and Qatar. Whatever he does, I don't see how he could possibly do more harm to world peace than previous presidents did by supporting KSA, Qatar and their Wahhabist ideology which is also behind ISIS.

Admittedly I don't agree with Trump's stance towards Iran, I think United States should seek Iran as an ally against KSA, Qatar and ISIS.


Cooperation in Syria in propping up a murderer like Assad, and those soldiers of his that were going house to house in Aleppo shooting civilians isn't my idea of moving this nations' interests forward. It's a step taking us back towards barbarism.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:04 pm

pvjin wrote:
Doesn't it matter to you that Trump's unwillingness to wake war in the Middle East is likely going to save hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives? Are their lives worth less than the well-being of the American military industry to you?


What are you talking about?

Think about the fact that Trump's pick for National Security Advisor tried as best he could to tie the Benghazi attack to Iran despite no evidence to support that conclusion. Think about the fact that he has a reputation for determining conclusions and then looking for evidence to prove those conclusions, and think about the fact that he will have direct access to the president while the intelligence agencies that rightly decided there was no connection between Benghazi and Iran won't, because Trump doesn't bother with their briefings. Think about what happened the last time the US government searched for facts to fit a narrative about a country in the Middle East.

Think about how many lives a now-very-likely war with Iran would cost and then re-evaluate your position on the merits of Trump's foreign policy. Are their lives worth less?
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:12 pm

Hillis wrote:
Cooperation in Syria in propping up a murderer like Assad, and those soldiers of his that were going house to house in Aleppo shooting civilians isn't my idea of moving this nations' interests forward. It's a step taking us back towards barbarism.


Do you seriously think the Islamist rebels are any less murderous? The only reason you don't hear so much about massacres and other cruelties committed by them is western mainstream media's bias. They even quote "Syrian Observatory For Human Rights" as a reliable source, even though the whole organization is ran from the UK by an Islamist who really hates Assad, what a reliable source! This story about Assad's forces going around shooting random civilians comes from this source too, and the media treats it as a fact even though it's a mere claim from a British citizen known to deeply hate Assad.

At least Assad tolerates religious minorities, belonging to one himself, while Christians and other minorities in Syria can say good bye to their lives if the Sunni rebels win.

Mir wrote:
pvjin wrote:
Doesn't it matter to you that Trump's unwillingness to wake war in the Middle East is likely going to save hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives? Are their lives worth less than the well-being of the American military industry to you?


What are you talking about?

Think about the fact that Trump's pick for National Security Advisor tried as best he could to tie the Benghazi attack to Iran despite no evidence to support that conclusion. Think about the fact that he has a reputation for determining conclusions and then looking for evidence to prove those conclusions, and think about the fact that he will have direct access to the president while the intelligence agencies that rightly decided there was no connection between Benghazi and Iran won't, because Trump doesn't bother with their briefings. Think about what happened the last time the US government searched for facts to fit a narrative about a country in the Middle East.

Think about how many lives a now-very-likely war with Iran would cost and then re-evaluate your position on the merits of Trump's foreign policy. Are their lives worth less?


GWB and Obama already caused a huge refugee wave to Europe and due to them now also Syria and Libya are in chaos. Wouldn't really surprise me if CIA was deeply involved in the Arab spring, and they sure as hell turned it much, much worse by supporting rebels.

At least there's a chance Trump might change US policy, Clinton would have been a direct continuation of same old BS and she also could have very well started a war with Iran.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:20 pm

pvjin wrote:
..........I see the part where he's planning to do more co-operation with Putin in Syria, and wants to stop supporting anti-Assad Islamist rebels.

Which brings up the subject of totalitarianism and no discussion of Russia is complete without discussing totalitarianism. The Soviet Union had little to do with socialism and allowing the people to rule themselves as in a commune, the SU was a totalitarian state, ruled from top down with an iron fist, not really dissimilar to Russia under the Czars or even Rus under Genghis Khan for that matter. It is all the Russian people have ever known. Assad is a prime example of a totalitarian leader, it's no wonder that he and Putin see eye to eye.

The topic of the thread is Russia but I can't help pointing out that Trump fits that same mold. One aspect of totalitarianism which should not be forgotten is that it is much easier for a nation to slip unto totalitarianism than for a nation to cast off totalitarianism.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12959
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:30 pm

Hillis wrote:

Cooperation in Syria in propping up a murderer like Assad, and those soldiers of his that were going house to house in Aleppo shooting civilians isn't my idea of moving this nations' interests forward. It's a step taking us back towards barbarism.


Remove Assad and what do you end up with, another mess like Iraq and Libya, two massive failures which the US is responsible for. The sensible solution would have been to help Assad crush and ultimately execute all the rebels, it would have been over quickly and the world would be a nicer place, after all it's better the dictator you know than the radical Islamist you don't.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:30 pm

salttee wrote:
Which brings up the subject of totalitarianism and no discussion of Russia is complete without discussing totalitarianism. The Soviet Union had little to do with socialism and allowing the people to rule themselves as in a commune, the SU was a totalitarian state, ruled from top down with an iron fist, not really dissimilar to Russia under the Czars or even Rus under Genghis Khan for that matter. It is all the Russian people have ever known. Assad is a prime example of a totalitarian leader, it's no wonder that he and Putin see eye to eye.


Syria is a state that needs a totalitarian dictator to stay in one piece, just like Iraq. So can we really blame him for using the only model of rulership that really works in these Middle Eastern countries where significant part of the population wants to kill the other part for religious differences?

There are plenty of countries in the world with way too uneducated, ignorant, diverse and religious populations for democracy to work, thus some form of dictatorship and totalitarianism is the only option. If Assad goes soon we will have a totalitarian Sunni dictator ruling the country, just like in KSA.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12959
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:35 pm

salttee wrote:
pvjin wrote:
..........I see the part where he's planning to do more co-operation with Putin in Syria, and wants to stop supporting anti-Assad Islamist rebels.

Which brings up the subject of totalitarianism and no discussion of Russia is complete without discussing totalitarianism. The Soviet Union had little to do with socialism and allowing the people to rule themselves as in a commune, the SU was a totalitarian state, ruled from top down with an iron fist, not really dissimilar to Russia under the Czars or even Rus under Genghis Khan for that matter. It is all the Russian people have ever known. Assad is a prime example of a totalitarian leader, it's no wonder that he and Putin see eye to eye.

The topic of the thread is Russia but I can't help pointing out that Trump fits that same mold. One aspect of totalitarianism which should not be forgotten is that it is much easier for a nation to slip unto totalitarianism than for a nation to cast off totalitarianism.


Totalitarianism is pretty much the only form of govt in the Middle East, the monarchies are also totalitarian in nature, when will the west learn that this is how it works over there, I don't think exporting democracy works, it hasn't for decades so why the bloody hell do we keep trying? As far as I'm concerned we should get the hell out of the Middle East and leave them to there own devices, and I would say the same with Africa, why should we waste time trying to help people who aren't interested in helping themselves.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:35 pm

salttee wrote:
pvjin wrote:
..........I see the part where he's planning to do more co-operation with Putin in Syria, and wants to stop supporting anti-Assad Islamist rebels.

Which brings up the subject of totalitarianism and no discussion of Russia is complete without discussing totalitarianism. The Soviet Union had little to do with socialism and allowing the people to rule themselves as in a commune, the SU was a totalitarian state, ruled from top down with an iron fist, not really dissimilar to Russia under the Czars or even Rus under Genghis Khan for that matter. It is all the Russian people have ever known. Assad is a prime example of a totalitarian leader, it's no wonder that he and Putin see eye to eye.

The topic of the thread is Russia but I can't help pointing out that Trump fits that same mold. One aspect of totalitarianism which should not be forgotten is that it is much easier for a nation to slip unto totalitarianism than for a nation to cast off totalitarianism.


The only real way to overthrow a totalitarian regime is pretty much through war. How'd that work out for Japan and Germany in the short run? Not very well.

Pvjin would rather Putin think for him. He'd make a perfect Republican.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:45 pm

Hillis wrote:
Pvjin would rather Putin think for him. He'd make a perfect Republican.


No, I think for myself which is the reason why I support Putin while all the biased western media around me is against him. My studies in history have given me a deep understanding of the world and critical attitude towards all information, which very much helps in detecting what is truthful and what is not. To put it simply, I'm not a sheep like the vast majority of people, propaganda doesn't affect my thinking.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:03 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Remove Assad and what do you end up with, another mess like Iraq and Libya, two massive failures which the US is responsible for. The sensible solution would have been to help Assad crush and ultimately execute all the rebels, it would have been over quickly and the world would be a nicer place, after all it's better the dictator you know than the radical Islamist you don't.

While there's a lot of truth in that, you are speaking from hindsight. The revolution in Syria began as justifiable pushback against a totalitarian tyrant by the common people and it was joined by factions of the military who were also not Islamic extremists. In most circumstance Assad would have been quickly deposed and Syria would have created a new government and the Islamists would have found little opening. But Syria was not left alone to solve its own problems, Iran and Russia both wanted to keep Assad in place for different but not incompatible reasons. Syria occupies strategic real estate and what was most unfortunate is that at the time there were all these Iraqi Sunnis who were displaced and radicalized.

What is remarkable is that while the US under Obama did offer vocal support for the rebels, the right wing in the US unanimously were demanding stronger action, they wanted US troops on the ground in Syria, Obama attempted a middle road, thinking that Assad could not last.

Now with 20/20 hindsight we can see that it would have been tactically better to have supported Assad, but that went against the grain here in the US, and for good reason.
 
wingman
Posts: 3950
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:32 pm

Point of order: the US has to take its lumps for Iraq and rightly so. That was a neo-con disaster of historical proportions. But no one can let the EU off the hook for Libya, France and the UK cooked up that plan so it's only fair to put them front and center. We played our part as good allies but they led the charge.
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1482
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:51 pm

pvjin wrote:
Hillis wrote:
Pvjin would rather Putin think for him. He'd make a perfect Republican.


No, I think for myself which is the reason why I support Putin while all the biased western media around me is against him. My studies in history have given me a deep understanding of the world and critical attitude towards all information, which very much helps in detecting what is truthful and what is not. To put it simply, I'm not a sheep like the vast majority of people, propaganda doesn't affect my thinking.



what news sources do you read?
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:18 pm

salttee wrote:
The revolution in Syria began as justifiable pushback against a totalitarian tyrant by the common people and it was joined by factions of the military who were also not Islamic extremists. In most circumstance Assad would have been quickly deposed and Syria would have created a new government and the Islamists would have found little opening.


Ever heard of a country called Libya? Exactly that happened there, and now look how successful and peaceful the country is years after Gaddafi fell. I would say only Assad's early victory would have saved Syria from chaos.

salttee wrote:
Now with 20/20 hindsight we can see that it would have been tactically better to have supported Assad, but that went against the grain here in the US, and for good reason.


Many people, including me could see it all the way from the start based on what happened in Iraq.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
what news sources do you read?


Mainly Finnish mainstream media, BBC, Russia Today, some alternative media sites. All of them offer little pieces of truth from which I can build a good view of the situation, though Russia Today and some alt media sites tend to be the most truthful as far as Syria goes.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8344
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:43 pm

I think Trump's approach has higher probability of success, we tried everything everything else, so what goes.

Lot of nations are milking US showing boogeyman Russia and it has to stop, while they continue to have business relationships. We are at a point it is irrelevant whether Russia is good or not. There are no saints.

Syria issue will never be solved without a honest chat with Russia.

IMHO, Ukraine conflict was totally unnecessary, EU shouldn't have made false promise to Ukraine and Kerry shouldn't be rushing with the check book. Leave the check book in DC and just talk.

Same in ME, as long as we take sides and keep funding, issues will never be resolved. At least Obama short circuited the unfettered support to Israel,Saudi and UAE by negotiating with Iran.

Turkey is another big surprise at least to public, no one knows what they are doing.

BFFs are not forever should be new mantra. America first.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:52 pm

pvjin wrote:

At least there's a chance Trump might change US policy, Clinton would have been a direct continuation of same old BS and she also could have very well started a war with Iran.


You didn't read any of what I wrote. Trump is going to start a war with Iran. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
alberchico
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:52 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:52 pm

Mir wrote:
pvjin wrote:

At least there's a chance Trump might change US policy, Clinton would have been a direct continuation of same old BS and she also could have very well started a war with Iran.


You didn't read any of what I wrote. Trump is going to start a war with Iran. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.


That's a bold assertion. Simply changing the terms of the nuclear deal will not automatically lead to war.
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:03 am

Mir wrote:
Trump is going to start a war with Iran. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.

You are right about that.

I just don't understand Trump being so buddy buddy with Putin while on the path to war with Iran.

Does he plan to have an abrupt break with Putin in the belief that this would secure blind support for him in the US?
Does he think Putin will allow him air attacks on Iran while Putin only pretends to oppose US actions?
Does he think that if he pushes Putin, Putin will back down in his support of Iran?
Does he think he can scare Iran with a bluff?
Does he think a really big war against a nation state (like WW2) will raise him to something akin to FDR's status?

It is easy to see that Trump has no clue about military tactics, strategy or action.
He has criticized the assault on Mosel because it wasn't done as a surprise attack.
He seems to think that Patton won WW2.
He has out and out said that he knows more than the generals.

Nothing about Trump makes any sense other than the clear fact that he is going to try and make a name for himself in Iran.

alberchico wrote:
Simply changing the terms of the nuclear deal will not automatically lead to war.

Except that there are two sides to the deal.
Iran will never back down.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:09 am

salttee wrote:
It came to be for me that Putin affirmed all the hardliners assumptions, the assassinations, the apartment bombings, the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the shooting down of an airliner full of people, the resurrection of their nuclear force, the divisive nature of their actions with Iran and in Syria.

Indeed, but the US going back to 2008 has given the wrong response in almost every case.

salttee wrote:
will he be trashing the United States and Europe in the process?

Yes.

TWA772LR wrote:
No one is going to invade Europe,

Russia already has. Twice.

flyguy89 wrote:
But NATO (at least on paper) isn't supposed to be just an American endeavor, but a joint venture with Western Europe who relies on it as much as America does. So, to Western Europe a prosperous and free Eastern Europe is unquestionably in their interest. And obviously if I were Estonia or Poland, I would have been falling over myself to join NATO, too. I'd say it's been effective to date, as Estonia, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania are now all enjoying their largest stints of independence

Indeed, which is why if the American administration (incoming or otherwise) were smart we would be turning eastern Europe in a fortress just as West Germany was.

Hillis wrote:
Cooperation in Syria in propping up a murderer like Assad, and those soldiers of his that were going house to house in Aleppo shooting civilians isn't my idea of moving this nations' interests forward. It's a step taking us back towards barbarism.

True. ISIS and Assad have the same relationship with each other that Hitler and Stalin did. This time the US should have the fortitude to take down both, first one and then the other, but I'm not optimistic.

dtw2hyd wrote:
IMHO, Ukraine conflict was totally unnecessary, EU shouldn't have made false promise to Ukraine and Kerry shouldn't be rushing with the check book. Leave the check book in DC and just talk.

Absolutely not. The US should set about arming Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe to the teeth. And ensure a good supply of weapons to Syrian rebels as well. For as much as I like to criticize Jimmy Carter, arming the mujahideen was a master stroke of foreign policy. You'll rarely go wrong making the Russians bleed.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8344
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:39 am

BMI727 wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
IMHO, Ukraine conflict was totally unnecessary, EU shouldn't have made false promise to Ukraine and Kerry shouldn't be rushing with the check book. Leave the check book in DC and just talk.

Absolutely not. The US should set about arming Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe to the teeth. And ensure a good supply of weapons to Syrian rebels as well. For as much as I like to criticize Jimmy Carter, arming the mujahideen was a master stroke of foreign policy. You'll rarely go wrong making the Russians bleed.


Not under Trump Presidency. Trump is of the opinion Crimea was collateral for $3B loan to Ukraine and the debt is settled now. Not too far from the truth. All Putin wanted was ONE buffer country between NATO and Russia, status quo would have been better but EU poked.

EU can arm Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe to the teeth, while at it give $3B and EU membership to Ukraine. Why Kerry wrote a check for $1B?

How can US arm Kurds while Turkey is trying to eliminate them. Rezoning entire ME along sectarian lines is probably one solution.

May be video gaming industry should create a game to help to run thru what if scenarios.
All posts are just opinions.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:08 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Not under Trump Presidency.

Well Trump doesn't have a clue what he's doing.

dtw2hyd wrote:
How can US arm Kurds while Turkey is trying to eliminate them.

Promise them a free and independent Kurdistan carved out of northern Iraq and maybe parts of Syria. In return they have to end hostility with Turkey, though there may need to be a peacekeeping force there for a while. The US should fully support Turkish efforts to fight Kurdish terrorism within their borders. Both sides should be made to understand that what Uncle Sam giveth Uncle Sam can taketh away and give to someone else who doesn't like you much.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7280
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

BMI727 wrote:
salttee wrote:
It came to be for me that Putin affirmed all the hardliners assumptions, the assassinations, the apartment bombings, the invasion of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the shooting down of an airliner full of people, the resurrection of their nuclear force, the divisive nature of their actions with Iran and in Syria.

Indeed, but the US going back to 2008 has given the wrong response in almost every case.

salttee wrote:
will he be trashing the United States and Europe in the process?

Yes.

TWA772LR wrote:
No one is going to invade Europe,

Russia already has. Twice.

flyguy89 wrote:
But NATO (at least on paper) isn't supposed to be just an American endeavor, but a joint venture with Western Europe who relies on it as much as America does. So, to Western Europe a prosperous and free Eastern Europe is unquestionably in their interest. And obviously if I were Estonia or Poland, I would have been falling over myself to join NATO, too. I'd say it's been effective to date, as Estonia, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania are now all enjoying their largest stints of independence

Indeed, which is why if the American administration (incoming or otherwise) were smart we would be turning eastern Europe in a fortress just as West Germany was.

Hillis wrote:
Cooperation in Syria in propping up a murderer like Assad, and those soldiers of his that were going house to house in Aleppo shooting civilians isn't my idea of moving this nations' interests forward. It's a step taking us back towards barbarism.

True. ISIS and Assad have the same relationship with each other that Hitler and Stalin did. This time the US should have the fortitude to take down both, first one and then the other, but I'm not optimistic.

dtw2hyd wrote:
IMHO, Ukraine conflict was totally unnecessary, EU shouldn't have made false promise to Ukraine and Kerry shouldn't be rushing with the check book. Leave the check book in DC and just talk.

Absolutely not. The US should set about arming Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe to the teeth. And ensure a good supply of weapons to Syrian rebels as well. For as much as I like to criticize Jimmy Carter, arming the mujahideen was a master stroke of foreign policy. You'll rarely go wrong making the Russians bleed.

I was talking about non-former Soviet Union Europe.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:23 am

BMI727 wrote:
Indeed, which is why if the American administration (incoming or otherwise) were smart we would be turning eastern Europe in a fortress just as West Germany was.


You don't want that, BMI727, because to get a force like that in Eastern Europe your taxes would go way up, and we all know the world revolves around you.

Seriously, though. I do think we need to beef up Central Europe, but to do what you would want, with massive tax breaks coming to the wealthiest Americans, it isn't gonna happen, not even in Tom Cotton's wettest dreams.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:27 am

dtw2hyd wrote:
Trump is of the opinion Crimea was collateral for $3B loan to Ukraine and the debt is settled now. Not too far from the truth

Wow, what is essentially a country for less that the cost of a single skyscraper in NY or Berlin, also less than the price for the US presidential jets. That's quite a deal. Nice piece of real estate too. I wonder how much the embargo has cost Russia so far?
dtw2hyd wrote:
All Putin wanted was ONE buffer country between NATO and Russia, status quo would have been better but EU poked.

This concept of a "buffer country" makes absolutely no sense, yet I see it bandied about as if it was a real thing. Is there actually anyone in Russia that thinks Romania is likely to invade Russia?
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8358
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:49 am

Putin illegally invaded and annexed Crimea. This was a result of the western powers screwing up through meddling in Ukrainian politics.

The Russians are masters at playing chess. Two years of pain from sanctions was well worth the annexation of a strategic part of Ukraine. Shame on the west if he gets away with it.

And if the Russians are good at chess, the Chinese play an even longer game. The typical Anglo-Saxon quarterly results game is to blame for this.

In Syria, the western powers totally screwed up through trying to overthrow a government. Assad was bad, but not as bad as the alternative that we are seeing today.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:39 am

alberchico wrote:

That's a bold assertion. Simply changing the terms of the nuclear deal will not automatically lead to war.


No, Trump shooting back at Iran when their navy pesters the US Navy in the Strait of Hormuz (something he has said he'll do) will lead to war (he doesn't think it will, but that's because he's an incompetent buffoon). Flynn finding a way to pin anything bad that happens in the Middle East on Iran and whispering it in Trump's ear will lead to war.

We went down this road with the stovepiping of intelligence and the holding of grudges against another country fourteen years ago, and that was with a president who, whatever else you might say about him, was interested in more than just looking strong and powerful. Why would we think it would turn out better this time? Are people's memories that short?
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11790
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:10 am

pvjin wrote:
Hillis wrote:
Pvjin would rather Putin think for him. He'd make a perfect Republican.


No, I think for myself which is the reason why I support Putin while all the biased western media around me is against him. My studies in history have given me a deep understanding of the world and critical attitude towards all information, which very much helps in detecting what is truthful and what is not. To put it simply, I'm not a sheep like the vast majority of people, propaganda doesn't affect my thinking.


I call bullshit ;-)

What have you found in your history studies which made you to support Putin?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12959
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:47 am

Mir wrote:
pvjin wrote:

At least there's a chance Trump might change US policy, Clinton would have been a direct continuation of same old BS and she also could have very well started a war with Iran.


You didn't read any of what I wrote. Trump is going to start a war with Iran. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.


Who apart from Israel is going to support the US in a war against Iran, Europe's not, I doubt he'll get support from any NATO allies, I can't even see the UK getting onboard, if anything the world is now pretty happy the Iran is being brought in from the cold, companies are flocking to IUran and winning huge deals, mine included, war with Iran is not going to be popular.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12959
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:52 am

salttee wrote:
Wow, what is essentially a country for less that the cost of a single skyscraper in NY or Berlin, also less than the price for the US presidential jets. That's quite a deal. Nice piece of real estate too. I wonder how much the embargo has cost Russia so far?


I wouldn't call it an embargo, it's mild sanctions to which there are mutiple loupholes, western companies operating in Russia are carrying on pretty much as they were before.

Form my perspective as an exporter to Russia, the only difficulty was recieving payment, and we've worked out how to get around that legally.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11790
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:53 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Mir wrote:
pvjin wrote:

At least there's a chance Trump might change US policy, Clinton would have been a direct continuation of same old BS and she also could have very well started a war with Iran.


You didn't read any of what I wrote. Trump is going to start a war with Iran. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.


Who apart from Israel is going to support the US in a war against Iran, Europe's not, I doubt he'll get support from any NATO allies, I can't even see the UK getting onboard, if anything the world is now pretty happy the Iran is being brought in from the cold, companies are flocking to IUran and winning huge deals, mine included, war with Iran is not going to be popular.


Loosing the tight from Russia, doesn't go well in Europe either, at least in Eastern Europe. I see him giving away Crimea and lifting the sanctions without anything in return or an oil concession or something. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, war in Iran will be a bad move too. A Dutch expresion comes to mind: "an elephant in a porcelain cabinet."
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:40 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Who apart from Israel is going to support the US in a war against Iran, Europe's not, I doubt he'll get support from any NATO allies, I can't even see the UK getting onboard...............

That's looking at it backwards, Israel is the driving force for US conflict with Iran, they lobby both as a nation and as an internal force in the US (AIPAC) for the US to go to war with Iran. Israel is the very reason Iran wants nukes. Without Israel there would be no problem.

Kiwirob wrote:
I wouldn't call it an embargo, it's mild sanctions to which there are mutiple loupholes, western companies operating in Russia are carrying on pretty much as they were before. Form my perspective as an exporter to Russia, the only difficulty was recieving payment, and we've worked out how to get around that legally.

You're right, I used the wrong word, I should have said sanctions. But still I think they have had more effect than you give them credit for, although it's hard to unbundle sanctions damage vs oil price plunge damage to their economy.

CNN put the cost to Russia at 100 bn as of April 2015
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/21/news/ec ... ons-price/

BBC puts the sanctions loss at 40 bn per year and the oil price fall cost at 100bn per year
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30174650

Weigh that against the 3bn that Ukraine was supposed to have owed Russia and which Russia claims was the reason for the invasion.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:36 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Who apart from Israel is going to support the US in a war against Iran, Europe's not, I doubt he'll get support from any NATO allies, I can't even see the UK getting onboard, if anything the world is now pretty happy the Iran is being brought in from the cold, companies are flocking to IUran and winning huge deals, mine included, war with Iran is not going to be popular.


All true. But Trump won't give a crap about any of it. If he wants to go, he'll go. And if other countries don't want to come with him, he'll have second thoughts about meeting the US' obligations to NATO if, for instance, Russia should decide that its former citizens in the Baltics need "protecting".
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:59 pm

Mir wrote:
All true. But Trump won't give a crap about any of it. If he wants to go, he'll go. And if other countries don't want to come with him, he'll have second thoughts about meeting the US' obligations to NATO if, for instance, Russia should decide that its former citizens in the Baltics need "protecting".

This would be a US and Israeli operation, with nobody else involved. Trump would be lucky if "Europe" doesn't issue a statement of opposition. Iraq as a Shiia nation, would be strongly opposed. Saudia Arabia and the other Gulf Sunni states would want nothing to do with it.

Russian technicians would be drooling at the opportunity to monitor the effectiveness of the SA-300 against US cruise missiles and F-35s.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13472
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:44 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Mir wrote:
pvjin wrote:

At least there's a chance Trump might change US policy, Clinton would have been a direct continuation of same old BS and she also could have very well started a war with Iran.


You didn't read any of what I wrote. Trump is going to start a war with Iran. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.


Who apart from Israel is going to support the US in a war against Iran, Europe's not, I doubt he'll get support from any NATO allies, I can't even see the UK getting onboard, if anything the world is now pretty happy the Iran is being brought in from the cold, companies are flocking to IUran and winning huge deals, mine included, war with Iran is not going to be popular.


Israel doesn't care who helps them or not or who is profiting now from goods and services with Iran. If Iran steps over the line (Which they will try) Bibi will take care of business and his military is more than capable to do it alone, If you want to ignore that Iran is a terrorist nation because they line your pocket go ahead. Not to mention your opinion of the US and Israel is quite low. Either way if Iran gets to a point that is dangerous they will be dealt with, and rightly so. Has nothing to do with Trump though I am sure if he feels the need to help our friends he will.
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:14 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Israel doesn't care who helps them or not or who is profiting now from goods and services with Iran. If Iran steps over the line (Which they will try) Bibi will take care of business and his military is more than capable to do it alone, If you want to ignore that Iran is a terrorist nation because they line your pocket go ahead. Not to mention your opinion of the US and Israel is quite low. Either way if Iran gets to a point that is dangerous they will be dealt with, and rightly so. Has nothing to do with Trump though I am sure if he feels the need to help our friends he will.

If Israel could go it alone they would already have gone.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13472
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:45 pm

salttee wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Israel doesn't care who helps them or not or who is profiting now from goods and services with Iran. If Iran steps over the line (Which they will try) Bibi will take care of business and his military is more than capable to do it alone, If you want to ignore that Iran is a terrorist nation because they line your pocket go ahead. Not to mention your opinion of the US and Israel is quite low. Either way if Iran gets to a point that is dangerous they will be dealt with, and rightly so. Has nothing to do with Trump though I am sure if he feels the need to help our friends he will.

If Israel could go it alone they would already have gone.


This is not true. Israel's intelligence is superior to everyone's and they are watching. They won't act till the situation dictates. If they are in danger they will launch a preventive strike. They have done it in the past and will do it again. Iran has been using a process. First was to exploit a weak US under a weak Obama and get the sanctions lifted. I am sure they didn't think they would be dealing with a President Trump and are reassessing since Trump isn't going to be passive on them but Israel will not hesitate to act if Iran crosses the line. Let us hope a Trump presidency will slow Iran down. Which I think it will.
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:02 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
...........a weak Obama............

Yes I'm sure you'd prefer for Trump to be a "strong" president like George Bush, but that didn't work out to the benefit of the US the last time and if the US were to take on Iran for you now that would be an even bigger disaster. It would cement Putin's foremost policy goal of diminishing US international influence.

That wouldn't bother you at all though, if the US came out of another lost war torn apart and divided, Israel could just change horses.
You're culturally closer to Russia anyway.

Right?
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A discussion of Russia

Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:20 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
salttee wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Israel doesn't care who helps them or not or who is profiting now from goods and services with Iran. If Iran steps over the line (Which they will try) Bibi will take care of business and his military is more than capable to do it alone, If you want to ignore that Iran is a terrorist nation because they line your pocket go ahead. Not to mention your opinion of the US and Israel is quite low. Either way if Iran gets to a point that is dangerous they will be dealt with, and rightly so. Has nothing to do with Trump though I am sure if he feels the need to help our friends he will.

If Israel could go it alone they would already have gone.


This is not true. Israel's intelligence is superior to everyone's and they are watching. They won't act till the situation dictates. If they are in danger they will launch a preventive strike. They have done it in the past and will do it again. Iran has been using a process. First was to exploit a weak US under a weak Obama and get the sanctions lifted. I am sure they didn't think they would be dealing with a President Trump and are reassessing since Trump isn't going to be passive on them but Israel will not hesitate to act if Iran crosses the line. Let us hope a Trump presidency will slow Iran down. Which I think it will.


What was that meme I saw a while ago? If you look at Trump and see strength in a man who is clearly a weak, insecure person, you're part of the problem.

Well, NIK, you're part of the problem. This guy isn't "strong". You confuse bluster with strength. Obama has more strength when it comes to dealing with the world in his pinkie than Trump has in his whole being.

A man who is "strong" doesn't get into arguments on Twitter with beauty queens, or reporters, or a Gold Star family, or getting mad because SNL is mocking you. That's the sign of a weak, insecure, mentally disturbed person. "Strong" isn't thinking with your testicles, as he does, but using your brain and intelligence of Obama.

So, based on that, I can pretty much dismiss you and anything you have to say about Trump.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, Airontario, ElPistolero, extender, N583JB, tommy1808 and 46 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos