Page 1 of 2

Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:05 am
by Aaron747
Pretty stunning story here on AFP and many other sources today. US intelligence concluded a GRU unit put out bounties to Afghan radicals for killing US forces there. 20 American soldiers were killed in 2019 in Afghanistan, and naturally it is difficult to confirm how many of these were bounties paid off.

What’s more galling is zero public mention of this by the WH (can anyone imagine the Reagan administration being silent on anything of this nature?) and that this was known in March. More galling still is the WH calling in April and May for Russia to be invited back to G7/8 meetings. Unbelievable - there will definitely be campaign commercials about this.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-thinks-rus ... 54017.html

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1 ... 61793?s=21

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:05 am
by Dutchy
yes read about it in the NY-times. Amazing that this is not addressed by the White House. Het has known about it for months now.

It seems to me that he is paying his debt for being elected.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:18 pm
by GDB
Aside from Trump being Putin's bitch, he has long showed disdain for the forces under his command.
It started in his election campaign remember, gold star family of a dead Muslim American soldier, insults. Against a veteran POW, contempt.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:41 pm
by ltbewr
The real answer would be for the USA to totally withdraw from Afghanistan but won't happen due to the fears of China taking over trade and to exploit rare earth and other mineral wealth and from a USA perspective, fear like with the end of the Vietnam War of leaving in defeat, shamed to the world, 'letting the terrorists win', something no politician from Trump on down will want to happen as fear losing in their next election.
This is also why we need full and uncensored disclosure of Trump's personal and business tax and financial records to show how he is 'owned' and being extorted by Russia and its ologarcha who helped lend him billions in bailouts and looking for 'interest' payments.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:16 pm
by Aaron747
Waiting for Sens. Graham, Grassley, Cotton, etc to weigh in on this. Crickets so far...what a joke.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:49 pm
by flyingturtle
ltbewr wrote:
but won't happen due to the fears of China taking over trade and to exploit rare earth and other mineral wealth


It would be so much better if the US government would clearly state a goal before waging war, and be willing to achieve them, no matter how many bodies have to be flown home. Without that kind of guidance, the US are walking from fiasco to fiasco.

Aaron747 wrote:
Waiting for Sens. Graham, Grassley, Cotton, etc to weigh in on this. Crickets so far...what a joke.


This reminds me of the quote... "The universally hated person is one who cannot be bribed."

Trump controls the GOP, and the GOP controls Graham, Grassley, Cotton, Graham and McTurtleface. They have been bribed into never saying anything against the Dear Leader.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:07 pm
by cpd
ltbewr wrote:
The real answer would be for the USA to totally withdraw from Afghanistan but won't happen due to the fears of China taking over trade and to exploit rare earth and other mineral wealth and from a USA perspective, fear like with the end of the Vietnam War of leaving in defeat, shamed to the world, 'letting the terrorists win', something no politician from Trump on down will want to happen as fear losing in their next election.
This is also why we need full and uncensored disclosure of Trump's personal and business tax and financial records to show how he is 'owned' and being extorted by Russia and its ologarcha who helped lend him billions in bailouts and looking for 'interest' payments.


He’s too soft on Russia, simple as that. China too.

He should be in the front foot, taking provocative measures. Setting up a new ‘commercial’ airport in a strategically important island, etc. then put missiles and fighter planes on it for instance.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:33 pm
by johns624
flyingturtle wrote:

Trump controls the GOP, and the GOP controls Graham, Grassley, Cotton, Graham and McTurtleface. They have been bribed into never saying anything against the Dear Leader.
I agree, although I would substitute "blackmailed" for "bribed".

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:52 pm
by BN747
Well now US Troops saw how he clearly threw down the gauntlet for 'Confederate Statues' (who are inanimate objects - not real humans - but stand up for them?

Not at all.

I'm surprised no Secret Service agents have vocally stepped aside in protest...why risk taking a bullet for him while he's willing to look the other way at their former comrades are dodging paid bullets to kill them. To protect the Nation/Constitution or protect the cowardly traitor...must be weighing heavily on some minds....

..what say you Joint Chief of Staff?

BN747

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:26 pm
by Newark727
Good news everybody! Russia says they totally didn't do it.

Just like they totally didn't have anything to do with those soldiers in Ukraine.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:16 am
by alfa164
Newark727 wrote:
Good news everybody! Russia says they totally didn't do it. Just like they totally didn't have anything to do with those soldiers in Ukraine.



...or the "Little Green Man" in Crimea. Or the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal ... or of Alexander Litvinenko before that. Or shooting down Korean Airlines 007...

Poor little Russia is squeaky-clean... just misunderstood...


:roll:

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:58 am
by afcjets
Dutchy wrote:
yes read about it in the NY-times. Amazing that this is not addressed by the White House. Het has known about it for months now.

It seems to me that he is paying his debt for being elected.


What's more surprising to me is its not being discussed on CNN yet from what I can tell.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:58 am
by maint123
Lots of Fake news around.
Found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet or not ? That was another intelligence gem from the Americans.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:02 am
by afcjets
cpd wrote:

He’s too soft on Russia, simple as that. China too.

He should be in the front foot, taking provocative measures. Setting up a new ‘commercial’ airport in a strategically important island, etc. then put missiles and fighter planes on it for instance.


Or maybe do like Joe and Obama and drop a billion dollars from the sky to help fund the bounties. :scratchchin:

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:04 am
by Newark727
maint123 wrote:
Lots of Fake news around.
Found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet or not ? That was another intelligence gem from the Americans.


Forgive me if I find it hard to shed a tear when a victim of "fake news" is one of its foremost purveyors (the Russian government.) Base your entire foreign policy on lying your ass off, and soon enough no one's going to believe your denials...

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:17 am
by Aaron747
afcjets wrote:
cpd wrote:

He’s too soft on Russia, simple as that. China too.

He should be in the front foot, taking provocative measures. Setting up a new ‘commercial’ airport in a strategically important island, etc. then put missiles and fighter planes on it for instance.


Or maybe do like Joe and Obama and drop a billion dollars from the sky to help fund the bounties. :scratchchin:


Umm what? To do that they would have had to air drop cash into SVO. Try again.

Mentioned twice on CNN today by the way, not that it matters. Lots of real conservatives already discussing the implausible WH denials on Twitter as well. Here’s one:

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 54442?s=21

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 88674?s=21

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:39 am
by scbriml
Newark727 wrote:
Good news everybody! Russia says they totally didn't do it.

Just like they totally didn't have anything to do with those soldiers in Ukraine.


Or spreading Novichok around Salisbury. Or shooting down MH17. Or bombing hospitals in Syria. Or... :sarcastic:

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:53 am
by sierrakilo44
After the US funded, armed and trained the Mujahadeen to kill Russians in Afghanistan in the 80’s, you can probably see why Russia was out for a bit of revenge. It just a took a few decades.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:06 am
by GDB
sierrakilo44 wrote:
After the US funded, armed and trained the Mujahadeen to kill Russians in Afghanistan in the 80’s, you can probably see why Russia was out for a bit of revenge. It just a took a few decades.


True, though in the 80's the memory of Vietnam was fresher in the memories of Washington, the enemy there supplied and assisted by the USSR and China, the technical rather than just material assistance mostly from the former.
The 19th 'Great Game' late 20th/early 21st century style.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:56 am
by sierrakilo44
GDB wrote:
The 19th 'Great Game' late 20th/early 21st century style.


Actually the US killings of Russians were a bit more recent than I thought.

February 2018 in Syria, Russian contractors killed by US airstrikes. Not sure if regular Russian soldiers were involved, but it’s not a stretch to believe that Russian intelligence or special forces assets were in the group killed, or the contractors were mostly recently retired Russian military who still have a lot of friends in the Russian military or intelligence services.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:00 am
by GDB
sierrakilo44 wrote:
GDB wrote:
The 19th 'Great Game' late 20th/early 21st century style.


Actually the US killings of Russians were a bit more recent than I thought.

February 2018 in Syria, Russian contractors killed by US airstrikes. Not sure if regular Russian soldiers were involved, but it’s not a stretch to believe that Russian intelligence or special forces assets were in the group killed, or the contractors were mostly recently retired Russian military who still have a lot of friends in the Russian military or intelligence services.


I recall it. They were Russian military who were not supposed to be there.
In the sense that the US was keen to avoid for obvious reasons targeting Russians, so did consult, seems the 'contractors' trick from Ukraine did not work out that time.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:09 am
by sierrakilo44
GDB wrote:
I recall it. They were Russian military who were not supposed to be there.


Who decides who is “supposed” to be in a war zone?

Sort of like this Afghanistan story. Whilst these pay offs may have happened, as this very vague article claims, I don’t think Afghanis need much incentive to be fighting a Nation they’ve been fighting for almost 20 years in their own country.

The whole story of Afghanistan is a mess, it has been for the Macedonians, the Mongols, the British, the Soviets and now the Americans. I remember George W Bush speaking in 2001 shortly after the initial invasion about how America was not going to repeat the mistakes of previous invaders.

Boy was he wrong......

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:34 am
by scbriml
Russia says it's not true, so obviously it didn't happen. :liar:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53204747
Russia has rejected as "baseless" accusations that it offered Taliban-linked militants rewards to kill US and other Nato troops in Afghanistan.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:38 am
by GDB
sierrakilo44 wrote:
GDB wrote:
I recall it. They were Russian military who were not supposed to be there.


Who decides who is “supposed” to be in a war zone?

Sort of like this Afghanistan story. Whilst these pay offs may have happened, as this very vague article claims, I don’t think Afghanis need much incentive to be fighting a Nation they’ve been fighting for almost 20 years in their own country.

The whole story of Afghanistan is a mess, it has been for the Macedonians, the Mongols, the British, the Soviets and now the Americans. I remember George W Bush speaking in 2001 shortly after the initial invasion about how America was not going to repeat the mistakes of previous invaders.

Boy was he wrong......


Russia stepped in to save Assad, who used chemical weapons against his own people as well as indiscriminate 'barrel bombing' on deliberate targets such as hospitals and refugee centers.
In order to keep some naval port for their use, not that their navy can actually use it much.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:45 pm
by sierrakilo44
GDB wrote:

Russia stepped in to save Assad, who used chemical weapons against his own people as well as indiscriminate 'barrel bombing' on deliberate targets such as hospitals and refugee centers.
In order to keep some naval port for their use, not that their navy can actually use it much.


And a lot examples of Americans supporting brutal people in the region too, from the Saudis and their brutal war against Yemen or MEK cultists in Iran or jihadis in Libya and on and on (not to mention US supported Saudi Arabia’s backing of Islamists in Syria) so again why is it different for Russia in Syria and again who decides who is “supposed” to be in a country?

In Syria was Russia was there on the request of the government, the US wasn’t

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:36 pm
by afcjets
Aaron747 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Or maybe do like Joe and Obama and drop a billion dollars from the sky to help fund the bounties. :scratchchin:

Umm what? To do that they would have had to air drop cash into SVO. Try again.

Mentioned twice on CNN today by the way, not that it matters. Lots of real conservatives already discussing the implausible WH denials on Twitter as well. Here’s one:

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 54442?s=21

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 88674?s=21


No reason to try again. I can't help if you think Iran is better than Russia, or having a goal of attacking American civilians is more palatable than one of attacking allied soldiers in a combat zone.

CNN mentioned it twice in one day? If Trump tweets something mildly offensive they report on it 24/7 for several days or more.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:00 pm
by Aaron747
afcjets wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Or maybe do like Joe and Obama and drop a billion dollars from the sky to help fund the bounties. :scratchchin:

Umm what? To do that they would have had to air drop cash into SVO. Try again.

Mentioned twice on CNN today by the way, not that it matters. Lots of real conservatives already discussing the implausible WH denials on Twitter as well. Here’s one:

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 54442?s=21

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 88674?s=21


No reason to try again. I can't help if you think Iran is better than Russia, or having a goal of attacking American civilians is more palatable than one of attacking allied soldiers in a combat zone.

CNN mentioned it twice in one day? If Trump tweets something mildly offensive they report on it 24/7 for several days or more.


Try responding to the actual topic, was my meaning. Again, if these intel reports are accurate, how can this be defensible for the WH? These mental 45'er gymnastics are irredeemable.

Perhaps you should look at the analysis of someone intimately familiar with the Presidential daily briefings:

https://twitter.com/DavidPriess/status/ ... 4884481025

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:48 pm
by GDB
sierrakilo44 wrote:
GDB wrote:

Russia stepped in to save Assad, who used chemical weapons against his own people as well as indiscriminate 'barrel bombing' on deliberate targets such as hospitals and refugee centers.
In order to keep some naval port for their use, not that their navy can actually use it much.


And a lot examples of Americans supporting brutal people in the region too, from the Saudis and their brutal war against Yemen or MEK cultists in Iran or jihadis in Libya and on and on (not to mention US supported Saudi Arabia’s backing of Islamists in Syria) so again why is it different for Russia in Syria and again who decides who is “supposed” to be in a country?

In Syria was Russia was there on the request of the government, the US wasn’t


But but but...whatabout, whatabout...who says I'm in favor of those policies?
Usual tactic, try and deflect.

Putin wants a port in the region for his navy which can barely manage a major deployment once every few years.
Small man syndrome.
If any of those governments you mention had used chemical weapons against their own people, US support for them would become untenable, even with Trump.

Back on topic, not only US troops, as you will see in the links below, Putin seems to have an affinity with users of chemical weapons;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... k-soldiers

A more extensive look at the case in the UK, where only the prompt actions of local police and health bodies prevented a potential mass casualty event. As it was, an innocent and vulnerable woman died and Putin's targets, though seriously ill, survived;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... encies-gru

GRU, the gang that could not shoot straight, no wonder they are using bounties, (maybe have to, not for revenge for that airstrike, just they ain't that good.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:58 pm
by seb146
afcjets wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Or maybe do like Joe and Obama and drop a billion dollars from the sky to help fund the bounties. :scratchchin:

Umm what? To do that they would have had to air drop cash into SVO. Try again.

Mentioned twice on CNN today by the way, not that it matters. Lots of real conservatives already discussing the implausible WH denials on Twitter as well. Here’s one:

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 54442?s=21

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 88674?s=21


No reason to try again. I can't help if you think Iran is better than Russia, or having a goal of attacking American civilians is more palatable than one of attacking allied soldiers in a combat zone.

CNN mentioned it twice in one day? If Trump tweets something mildly offensive they report on it 24/7 for several days or more.


You bring up Iran and I have to wonder if you are referring to their frozen assets from oil sales that were theirs in the first place?

Why does it matter if CNN mentioned it once or 1000 times. The point is king MAGA knew about this and did nothing. Who cares which outlet talks about it however many times.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:18 pm
by tu204
GDB wrote:
sierrakilo44 wrote:
GDB wrote:
I recall it. They were Russian military who were not supposed to be there.


Who decides who is “supposed” to be in a war zone?

Sort of like this Afghanistan story. Whilst these pay offs may have happened, as this very vague article claims, I don’t think Afghanis need much incentive to be fighting a Nation they’ve been fighting for almost 20 years in their own country.

The whole story of Afghanistan is a mess, it has been for the Macedonians, the Mongols, the British, the Soviets and now the Americans. I remember George W Bush speaking in 2001 shortly after the initial invasion about how America was not going to repeat the mistakes of previous invaders.

Boy was he wrong......


Russia stepped in to save Assad, who used chemical weapons against his own people as well as indiscriminate 'barrel bombing' on deliberate targets such as hospitals and refugee centers.
In order to keep some naval port for their use, not that their navy can actually use it much.


Russian involvement in Syria had nothing to do with the (then) logistics base at Tartus.

It was about a) drawing a red line and stopping western meddling in the middle east, but more importantly b) stopping the spread of ISIL as they were a direct threat to Russia through recruiting Russian citizens from Muslim regions in Russia and citizens of Central Asian countries that have easy access to Russia.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:23 pm
by GDB
tu204 wrote:
GDB wrote:
sierrakilo44 wrote:

Who decides who is “supposed” to be in a war zone?

Sort of like this Afghanistan story. Whilst these pay offs may have happened, as this very vague article claims, I don’t think Afghanis need much incentive to be fighting a Nation they’ve been fighting for almost 20 years in their own country.

The whole story of Afghanistan is a mess, it has been for the Macedonians, the Mongols, the British, the Soviets and now the Americans. I remember George W Bush speaking in 2001 shortly after the initial invasion about how America was not going to repeat the mistakes of previous invaders.

Boy was he wrong......


Russia stepped in to save Assad, who used chemical weapons against his own people as well as indiscriminate 'barrel bombing' on deliberate targets such as hospitals and refugee centers.
In order to keep some naval port for their use, not that their navy can actually use it much.


Russian involvement in Syria had nothing to do with the (then) logistics base at Tartus.

It was about a) drawing a red line and stopping western meddling in the middle east, but more importantly b) stopping the spread of ISIL as they were a direct threat to Russia through recruiting Russian citizens from Muslim regions in Russia and citizens of Central Asian countries that have easy access to Russia.


You keep telling yourself that. Though that remaining carrier isn't ever going to be using it.
Certainly he seems happy to defend a user of chemical weapons, well he might well do, given Putin's own record with them.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:58 pm
by Dutchy
tu204 wrote:
Russian involvement in Syria had nothing to do with the (then) logistics base at Tartus.

It was about a) drawing a red line and stopping western meddling in the middle east, but more importantly b) stopping the spread of ISIL as they were a direct threat to Russia through recruiting Russian citizens from Muslim regions in Russia and citizens of Central Asian countries that have easy access to Russia.


Ah. that's why Russia and Assad let ISIS to the western alliance and ignored them for a long time to focus on any group opposing the Assad regime, except ISIS. So that is not the truth.

BTW now you admit that it is all about Geopolitics and not about the Syrians as you claimed in the Syrian thread. So there is a discrepancy in that.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:41 pm
by GalaxyFlyer
Aaron747 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
Umm what? To do that they would have had to air drop cash into SVO. Try again.

Mentioned twice on CNN today by the way, not that it matters. Lots of real conservatives already discussing the implausible WH denials on Twitter as well. Here’s one:

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 54442?s=21

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/sta ... 88674?s=21


No reason to try again. I can't help if you think Iran is better than Russia, or having a goal of attacking American civilians is more palatable than one of attacking allied soldiers in a combat zone.

CNN mentioned it twice in one day? If Trump tweets something mildly offensive they report on it 24/7 for several days or more.


Try responding to the actual topic, was my meaning. Again, if these intel reports are accurate, how can this be defensible for the WH? These mental 45'er gymnastics are irredeemable.

Perhaps you should look at the analysis of someone intimately familiar with the Presidential daily briefings:

https://twitter.com/DavidPriess/status/ ... 4884481025


Exactly what do you propose Trump, or the US, do to intimidate Putin after his many murders around the world, now this bit. Nuke Moscow sounds extreme, but is it on your menu? Or just a bunch of nasty words?

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:51 pm
by Newark727
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Exactly what do you propose Trump, or the US, do to intimidate Putin after his many murders around the world, now this bit. Nuke Moscow sounds extreme, but is it on your menu? Or just a bunch of nasty words?


There have to be some options between harsh language and nuclear war... at least, I hope so.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:52 pm
by Aaron747
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
afcjets wrote:

No reason to try again. I can't help if you think Iran is better than Russia, or having a goal of attacking American civilians is more palatable than one of attacking allied soldiers in a combat zone.

CNN mentioned it twice in one day? If Trump tweets something mildly offensive they report on it 24/7 for several days or more.


Try responding to the actual topic, was my meaning. Again, if these intel reports are accurate, how can this be defensible for the WH? These mental 45'er gymnastics are irredeemable.

Perhaps you should look at the analysis of someone intimately familiar with the Presidential daily briefings:

https://twitter.com/DavidPriess/status/ ... 4884481025


Exactly what do you propose Trump, or the US, do to intimidate Putin after his many murders around the world, now this bit. Nuke Moscow sounds extreme, but is it on your menu? Or just a bunch of nasty words?


There are many good policy options available as part of a cohesive strategy. We lack the latter right now, but this is definitely the sort of thing 40 would have used to catalyze a squeeze policy. Certainly NOT turning around and inviting them to rejoin the G8, as 45 has. Big WTF there.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:17 am
by GalaxyFlyer
Aaron747 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Try responding to the actual topic, was my meaning. Again, if these intel reports are accurate, how can this be defensible for the WH? These mental 45'er gymnastics are irredeemable.

Perhaps you should look at the analysis of someone intimately familiar with the Presidential daily briefings:

https://twitter.com/DavidPriess/status/ ... 4884481025


Exactly what do you propose Trump, or the US, do to intimidate Putin after his many murders around the world, now this bit. Nuke Moscow sounds extreme, but is it on your menu? Or just a bunch of nasty words?


There are many good policy options available as part of a cohesive strategy. We lack the latter right now, but this is definitely the sort of thing 40 would have used to catalyze a squeeze policy. Certainly NOT turning around and inviting them to rejoin the G8, as 45 has. Big WTF there.


Agreed on Trump’s inaction as of today. Between nasty words and nuclear war, there is more sanctions that Putin and gang will laugh off. Further financial pressures like leaving them out of the G8, removing them from SWIFT and seriously hurt their finances and conventional war. Really, the Euroweenies will nix any serious sanctions, they need Russian gas, Russian money (esp London) and fear Russian reactions, so what do you like—words, conventional war or nuclear war?

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:58 am
by Aaron747
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Exactly what do you propose Trump, or the US, do to intimidate Putin after his many murders around the world, now this bit. Nuke Moscow sounds extreme, but is it on your menu? Or just a bunch of nasty words?


There are many good policy options available as part of a cohesive strategy. We lack the latter right now, but this is definitely the sort of thing 40 would have used to catalyze a squeeze policy. Certainly NOT turning around and inviting them to rejoin the G8, as 45 has. Big WTF there.


Agreed on Trump’s inaction as of today. Between nasty words and nuclear war, there is more sanctions that Putin and gang will laugh off. Further financial pressures like leaving them out of the G8, removing them from SWIFT and seriously hurt their finances and conventional war. Really, the Euroweenies will nix any serious sanctions, they need Russian gas, Russian money (esp London) and fear Russian reactions, so what do you like—words, conventional war or nuclear war?


The EU definitely has a lot of opinions on the subject, that’s just the nature of realpolitik. But the squeeze is still possible - 40 bankrupted the USSR through an arms race. Low oil and gas prices do not help Russia - we can certainly act in coordination with the EU to keep them low. Russian citizens are dissatisfied with broken promises on infrastructure investment - we can redouble NATO coordination, speak with one voice, and take actions like new bases in the former eastern bloc. This will further delay any infrastructure spending in Russia because they’ll predictably respond with compensatory military investment they can’t afford. Their leader is trying to reinstitute Soviet-style controls on domestic industry but the people aren’t seeing any benefits anymore. If they want to play destabilization games with the west, we can help them along with their domestic issues as well.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:13 am
by BN747
Here's food for thought...how are all those West Point grads last month feeling right about know as they read about his knowing about this as tried appear patriotic speaking before them?

BN747

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:16 am
by seb146
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Exactly what do you propose Trump, or the US, do to intimidate Putin after his many murders around the world, now this bit. Nuke Moscow sounds extreme, but is it on your menu? Or just a bunch of nasty words?


Weren't there sanctions against Putin until January 2017? Weren't we against Russia and Putin until January 2017?

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:47 am
by tommy1808
Aaron747 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

There are many good policy options available as part of a cohesive strategy. We lack the latter right now, but this is definitely the sort of thing 40 would have used to catalyze a squeeze policy. Certainly NOT turning around and inviting them to rejoin the G8, as 45 has. Big WTF there.


Agreed on Trump’s inaction as of today. Between nasty words and nuclear war, there is more sanctions that Putin and gang will laugh off. Further financial pressures like leaving them out of the G8, removing them from SWIFT and seriously hurt their finances and conventional war. Really, the Euroweenies will nix any serious sanctions, they need Russian gas, Russian money (esp London) and fear Russian reactions, so what do you like—words, conventional war or nuclear war?

40 bankrupted the USSR through an arms race.


not really, it may have moved up the timeline, but the USSR was economically doomed before he was sworn in.
Incidentally he did set up his own country for bankcruptcy.

Low oil and gas prices do not help Russia - we can certainly act in coordination with the EU to keep them low.


Trump actually drove prices up...... cartel style.

sierrakilo44 wrote:
After the US funded, armed and trained the Mujahadeen to kill Russians in Afghanistan in the 80’s, you can probably see why Russia was out for a bit of revenge. It just a took a few decades.


and the general secretary kept the US involvement a secret too? Otherwise there is nothing analogous.

best regards
Thomas

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:12 am
by Lilienthal
I'm sure the Benghazi-patriots will be up in arms about this, you'll see....

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:25 am
by tommy1808
Lilienthal wrote:
I'm sure the Benghazi-patriots will be up in arms about this, you'll see....


I don´t think that Hell will freeze over in our lifetime......

best regards
Thomas

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:53 am
by Aaron747
tommy1808 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Agreed on Trump’s inaction as of today. Between nasty words and nuclear war, there is more sanctions that Putin and gang will laugh off. Further financial pressures like leaving them out of the G8, removing them from SWIFT and seriously hurt their finances and conventional war. Really, the Euroweenies will nix any serious sanctions, they need Russian gas, Russian money (esp London) and fear Russian reactions, so what do you like—words, conventional war or nuclear war?

40 bankrupted the USSR through an arms race.


not really, it may have moved up the timeline, but the USSR was economically doomed before he was sworn in.
Incidentally he did set up his own country for bankcruptcy.

Low oil and gas prices do not help Russia - we can certainly act in coordination with the EU to keep them low.


Trump actually drove prices up...... cartel style.

sierrakilo44 wrote:
After the US funded, armed and trained the Mujahadeen to kill Russians in Afghanistan in the 80’s, you can probably see why Russia was out for a bit of revenge. It just a took a few decades.


and the general secretary kept the US involvement a secret too? Otherwise there is nothing analogous.

best regards
Thomas


Not really on topic, but not quite accurate. The middle class and US debt clock were cooked from about 1975 onward. 40 can be said to have accelerated things, but he didn’t start the slide. But yes I spoke with a bit of generalization about bankrupting the USSR - moved up the timetable is more correct.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:56 am
by anrec80
Newark727 wrote:
Good news everybody! Russia says they totally didn't do it.

Just like they totally didn't have anything to do with those soldiers in Ukraine.


Except that in this case Taliban itself rebuts it:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... s-53208616

So does Trump:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... t-credible

Taliban was not in talks with Russians, Russians were not in talks with Taliban, Trump has no reason to see it credible either. I guess this conspiracy exists only in imagination of the article authors and their always anonymous sources.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:14 am
by tommy1808
anrec80 wrote:
Newark727 wrote:
Good news everybody! Russia says they totally didn't do it.

Just like they totally didn't have anything to do with those soldiers in Ukraine.


Except that in this case Taliban itself rebuts it:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... s-53208616

So does Trump:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... t-credible.


so... two sources with ample reason to lie?

best regards
Thomas

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:18 am
by sierrakilo44
Aaron747 wrote:

The EU definitely has a lot of opinions on the subject, that’s just the nature of realpolitik. But the squeeze is still possible - 40 bankrupted the USSR through an arms race. Low oil and gas prices do not help Russia - we can certainly act in coordination with the EU to keep them low. Russian citizens are dissatisfied with broken promises on infrastructure investment - we can redouble NATO coordination, speak with one voice, and take actions like new bases in the former eastern bloc.


But the ones affected were US soldiers, not EU ones. The EU wasn’t harmed. There’s no real impetus there to start a trade war with Russia or massively increase military spending to intimidate them.

And the desire to get involved in a geopolitical contest with Russia alongside the current US government is practically zero. Not just the current US Administration, if it changes in November there’ll still be years of repair that’ll need to happen, it won’t all change overnight. As well the EU is shying away from geopolitical contests, having declined to support the US in their geopolitical contest with China.

Nor is there much impetus in the US now, with a recession, infrastructure and social welfare problems at home to further increase military spending there too.

I did see that UK troops were targeted as well, but in 2020 the willingness of the EU to take action on the behalf of the UK is not great at all, after what’s come out of the mouths of Britons toward the EU in recent years.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:27 am
by Aaron747
anrec80 wrote:
Newark727 wrote:
Good news everybody! Russia says they totally didn't do it.

Just like they totally didn't have anything to do with those soldiers in Ukraine.


Except that in this case Taliban itself rebuts it:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... s-53208616

So does Trump:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... t-credible

Taliban was not in talks with Russians, Russians were not in talks with Taliban, Trump has no reason to see it credible either. I guess this conspiracy exists only in imagination of the article authors and their always anonymous sources.


And since when does the Taliban have geopolitical credibility? Come on now.

The sources MUST be anonymous because the WH is trying to pretend this situation is fantasy. More information coming out in today’s reporting:

The officials the AP spoke to said the intelligence community has been investigating an April 2019 attack on an American convoy that killed three U.S. Marines after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they were traveling back to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan. Three other U.S. service members were wounded in the attack, along with an Afghan contractor. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on Twitter. The officials the AP spoke to also said they were looking closely at insider attacks — sometimes called “green-on-blue” incidents — from 2019 to determine if they are also linked to Russian bounties.

In early 2020, members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000. The recovered funds further solidified the suspicions of the American intelligence community that the Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and other linked associations.


https://apnews.com/a59124b8eb95f6245286 ... ce=Twitter

Do you have sources discounting the above?

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:41 am
by sierrakilo44
Aaron747 wrote:

And since when does the Taliban have geopolitical credibility? Come on now.


Maybe in 2001, when they offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US stopped bombing and provided evidence of his guilt?:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-9143208.html

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:00 am
by Aaron747
sierrakilo44 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

And since when does the Taliban have geopolitical credibility? Come on now.


Maybe in 2001, when they offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US stopped bombing and provided evidence of his guilt?:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-9143208.html


A fair point, but I can see both sides of that one, as can any objective observer. The date on the article is early October of 2001, that's nursing a pretty fresh wound. Not a defender of 43 by any means, but he had a point - why turn OBL over to a 3rd party country - just provide his location if you're so concerned about civilians in the way? Realpolitik.

Re: Bounty on US Troops Unanswered by White House

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:01 am
by tommy1808
sierrakilo44 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
8

And since when does the Taliban have geopolitical credibility? Come on now.


Maybe in 2001, when they offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US stopped bombing and provided evidence of his guilt?:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-9143208.html


Didn't they offer that before the bombing started already?

However, I am not sure how genuine the offer was, although I tend to believe it was.

Best regards
Thomas