Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Yep, I suspected as much.
Trump's Team Looks Smarter on Russia
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Yep, I suspected as much.
stupid and facile at the same time. was not Qaddafi a legitimate ruler of Libya?
The NTC were al-Qaeda led "rebels" from the east ( ansar al-sharia,and Libyan Islamic Fighting Group mostly)
He had every right and duty to put down the insurrection
a few bombs?? try over 10,000 sorties ( with cluster bombs too) as well as Tomahawks from US ships.
http://world.time.com/2012/05/16/how-many-innocent-civilians-did-nato-kill-in-libya/
Human Rights Watch report released this week titled “Unacknowledged Deaths.” The report details eight specific incidents where at least 72 Libyan civilians died as the result of NATO’s bombing campaign..
It’s not just restricted to the calamities wrought by a wayward missile.
Rights groups faulted NATO in the deaths of some 62 refugees fleeing the war in Libya last May—repeated distress calls from their ship, which was cast adrift in Mediterranean, went unheeded by nearby NATO vessels.
Dozens onboard died of thirst and starvation. The aftermath of NATO’s campaign has proved deadly as well: after NATO sorties sent Gaddafi forces into retreat, the dictator’s vast caches of arms were opened up and emptied. Advanced weaponry from Libya has found its way to Mali and Syrian battlefields
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if one of Hillary's nominees were saying stuff like this she probably would have gotten elected.......
once more for the anti-Russian hysterics ( and war pigs like McCain)
Rex Tillerson made it clear at his confirmation hearing that he is not a fan of Vladimir Putin. That surprised many of those who held his record of successful deals in Russia, and his Russian Order of Friendship medal, against him. It shouldn't have. Tillerson was not out of sync with Donald Trump's stated desire for a better relationship with Russia, but he was signalling that improved relations shouldn't come at any price.
Tillerson started out by volunteering that "While Russia seeks respect and relevance on the global stage, its recent activities have disregarded America's interest." Then, under questioning from senators, he said the annexation of Crimea was "a taking of territory that was not theirs"; that "coming across the border of eastern Ukraine with both military assets and men was illegal"; that he supports the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials involved in human rights violations; that the Russian military action in Aleppo was "not acceptable behavior"; that Russia has a poor human rights record and doesn't adhere to the rule of law.
All this from a man who got a medal from Putin seemed to violate the cardinal rule of the "either-with-us-or-against-us" school of many American Russia-experts. Stanford professor Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia and a staunch supporter of the Obama administration's Russia policy, tweeted incredulously:
Russia, the outgoing Exxon Mobil CEO said, is a U.S. "adversary on an ideological level." Under Putin, it doesn't share the values the U.S. stands for. Yet Russia is predictable in wanting a seat at the table when global issues are discussed. Tillerson said:
They believe they deserve a rightful role in the global world order because they are a nuclear power. And they are searching as to how to establish that. And for most of the past 20-plus years since the demise of the Soviet Union they were not in a position to assert that. They have spent all of these years developing the capability to do that. I think that now what we are witnessing is an assertion on their part in order to force a conversation about what is Russia's role in the global world order. So the steps being taken are simply to make the point that Russia is here, Russia matters, and we are a force to be dealt with. That is a fairly predictable course of action they are taking.
Tillerson advocates "an open and frank dialog with Russia regarding ambitions so we know how to chart our own course." That dialogue will sometimes lead to partnership -- like in "reducing the global threat of terrorism." According to Tillerson (and indeed his new boss), defeating the Islamic State should be the first priority for the U.S. in the Middle East. In other cases, however, the U.S. must take strong action when Russian interests contradict U.S. ones. When pushed to suggest a different course of action on Ukraine than the one the Obama administration took, Tillerson didn't hesitate:
That, he said, would have signaled to Russia that it couldn't go beyond taking Crimea because that would mean a direct military confrontation with the U.S. Russia, he argued, needs to see a strong response before it considers taking a step back. In Tillerson's view, the U.S. response -- sanctions as imposed by the Obama administration -- signaled weakness, not strength.
The sanctions, according to Tillerson, were a flawed approach for three reasons: They hurt U.S. business (Exxon Mobil was one example -- the sanctions scuppered a major project with Rosneft);
they weren't backed by enough other countries, unlike the U.S.-initiated sanctions on Iran;
and they helped consolidate Putin's domestic support. That said, Tillerson didn't advocate lifting the sanctions immediately. Rather, he's in favor of the status quo until the U.S. and Russia are clear on the new status of their relationship.
Tillerson's knowledge of Russia is that of a businessman who has made billion-dollar deals there and who understands the peculiar entanglement of business and politics in Moscow. He clearly believes in approaching the relationship like a business negotiation: Identifying areas in which give and take is possible, initial and fall-back negotiating positions and red lines that are not to be crossed. This is in line with Trump's stated vision -- Tillerson is merely more articulate and, as an engineer by training, more precise than his would-be boss.
This is also a stark contrast to Barack Obama's view of the relationship, which the outgoing president summarized during his December press conference:
The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate. But they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values.
Obama sees Russia as insignificant and working with it as a departure from U.S. values. That vision may have stemmed from the disappointments brought on by the unsuccessful "reset" of relations during his first term, but it also pushed Putin to keep proving Obama wrong. He succeeded, demonstrating the powerlessness of U.S. sanctions to deter him in Ukraine, shunting the U.S. aside in Syria and perhaps even messing with a number of Western elections.
A negotiating process based on clearly drawn lines, which are backed by readiness to apply force, is not equal to support for Putin's human rights abuses and cross-border escapades. It can't be the beginning of a beautiful friendship; there are too many deeply rooted differences. But it can be the start of a more realistic, more predictable relationship -- the best both nuclear powers can hope for given their current irreconcilable differences of ideology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-12/trump-s-team-looks-smarter-on-russia
Rex Tillerson made it clear at his confirmation hearing that he is not a fan of Vladimir Putin. That surprised many of those who held his record of successful deals in Russia, and his Russian Order of Friendship medal, against him. It shouldn't have. Tillerson was not out of sync with Donald Trump's stated desire for a better relationship with Russia, but he was signalling that improved relations shouldn't come at any price.
Tillerson started out by volunteering that "While Russia seeks respect and relevance on the global stage, its recent activities have disregarded America's interest." Then, under questioning from senators, he said the annexation of Crimea was "a taking of territory that was not theirs"; that "coming across the border of eastern Ukraine with both military assets and men was illegal"; that he supports the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials involved in human rights violations; that the Russian military action in Aleppo was "not acceptable behavior"; that Russia has a poor human rights record and doesn't adhere to the rule of law.
All this from a man who got a medal from Putin seemed to violate the cardinal rule of the "either-with-us-or-against-us" school of many American Russia-experts. Stanford professor Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia and a staunch supporter of the Obama administration's Russia policy, tweeted incredulously:
Russia, the outgoing Exxon Mobil CEO said, is a U.S. "adversary on an ideological level." Under Putin, it doesn't share the values the U.S. stands for. Yet Russia is predictable in wanting a seat at the table when global issues are discussed. Tillerson said:
They believe they deserve a rightful role in the global world order because they are a nuclear power. And they are searching as to how to establish that. And for most of the past 20-plus years since the demise of the Soviet Union they were not in a position to assert that. They have spent all of these years developing the capability to do that. I think that now what we are witnessing is an assertion on their part in order to force a conversation about what is Russia's role in the global world order. So the steps being taken are simply to make the point that Russia is here, Russia matters, and we are a force to be dealt with. That is a fairly predictable course of action they are taking.
Tillerson advocates "an open and frank dialog with Russia regarding ambitions so we know how to chart our own course." That dialogue will sometimes lead to partnership -- like in "reducing the global threat of terrorism." According to Tillerson (and indeed his new boss), defeating the Islamic State should be the first priority for the U.S. in the Middle East. In other cases, however, the U.S. must take strong action when Russian interests contradict U.S. ones. When pushed to suggest a different course of action on Ukraine than the one the Obama administration took, Tillerson didn't hesitate:
That, he said, would have signaled to Russia that it couldn't go beyond taking Crimea because that would mean a direct military confrontation with the U.S. Russia, he argued, needs to see a strong response before it considers taking a step back. In Tillerson's view, the U.S. response -- sanctions as imposed by the Obama administration -- signaled weakness, not strength.
The sanctions, according to Tillerson, were a flawed approach for three reasons: They hurt U.S. business (Exxon Mobil was one example -- the sanctions scuppered a major project with Rosneft);
they weren't backed by enough other countries, unlike the U.S.-initiated sanctions on Iran;
and they helped consolidate Putin's domestic support. That said, Tillerson didn't advocate lifting the sanctions immediately. Rather, he's in favor of the status quo until the U.S. and Russia are clear on the new status of their relationship.
Tillerson's knowledge of Russia is that of a businessman who has made billion-dollar deals there and who understands the peculiar entanglement of business and politics in Moscow. He clearly believes in approaching the relationship like a business negotiation: Identifying areas in which give and take is possible, initial and fall-back negotiating positions and red lines that are not to be crossed. This is in line with Trump's stated vision -- Tillerson is merely more articulate and, as an engineer by training, more precise than his would-be boss.
This is also a stark contrast to Barack Obama's view of the relationship, which the outgoing president summarized during his December press conference:
The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate. But they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values.
Obama sees Russia as insignificant and working with it as a departure from U.S. values. That vision may have stemmed from the disappointments brought on by the unsuccessful "reset" of relations during his first term, but it also pushed Putin to keep proving Obama wrong. He succeeded, demonstrating the powerlessness of U.S. sanctions to deter him in Ukraine, shunting the U.S. aside in Syria and perhaps even messing with a number of Western elections.
A negotiating process based on clearly drawn lines, which are backed by readiness to apply force, is not equal to support for Putin's human rights abuses and cross-border escapades. It can't be the beginning of a beautiful friendship; there are too many deeply rooted differences. But it can be the start of a more realistic, more predictable relationship -- the best both nuclear powers can hope for given their current irreconcilable differences of ideology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-12/trump-s-team-looks-smarter-on-russia
Stop drooling and trying to act intelligent. It just makes you dumber than you are. I did not think that was possible.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
About as many as it takes to make a good password lol?
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Yep. Snap.
LOL.
when you get right down to it Podesta left his inbox wide open. as asange said "it could be hacked by a 14 year old.
The same with the DNC -the FBI tried to warn them numerous times
Darth Omar
Russian asset
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
That's just stupid.
Putin and everybody else with a brain knows that hacking leaves footprints. He didn't get away with it, he left footprints and he got caught. Clearly, Putin isn't interested in any 'reset.' That's just the bullshit they stuck in the heads of stupid people.
Analysis is not your forte' dude. You ignore the obvious and any truth you don't want to hear. Your 'conclusions' are pre-determined even before you know the truth.
You're stuck to a PT Barnum rich guy who American banks won't loan money to, and a KGB agent. :0) Not very bright .. very high school-ish.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Sure, that answers the question .. on an imbecilic level.
He's been hacking / China has been hacking/ Iran -damn near everybody.
My words: "He probably figured he could get away with it" / "Putin probably thought there would be no consequences."
Meaning he wouldn't face any penalty. The "hacking" was miniscule compared to Sony pictures, and China- who by all accounts didn't face any real penalty except Obama jawboning either.
An alternative answer is he simply screwed up - but it all goes back to the same thing - in that "he thought he could get away with it"
-as in not pay any real price
It's only the fact it was 'the Russians' - which sets up American visceral fears of the Russian boogeymen-
and the Dems seeking reason after reason why Clinton lost that it became more then it was, that this became an issue.
Your analysis is your typical self-important reasoning to nowhere. Look at what the sanctions are doing to Russia.
Do you think Putin would want more then negative growth? It's possible he could slip below (-1) percent this year.
He has been thriving on Russian nationalism, but even that can't last forever.
He's not stupid; his gambits have paid off handsomely in the Ukraine with now unfettered access to Sevastopol
and a federated eastern Ukraine.
That gives him a buffer state/zone between NATO and the Russian armed forces.
Even without US meddling in Ukraine -no matter what government takes power in Kyiv- he's now got a land route to Sevastopol
( almost finished building that bridge) and Russian control of eastern Ukraine thru the separatists.
I won't even go into the middle east. It's a "slam dunk" win for him all over -not just Syria because of Obama incompetence.
It's freaking hilarious to hear you tell me "analysis is not your forte', and my conclusions are pre-determined.
You are operating on Blind Hatred of Trump- what kind of clear/honest perspective does that give you? Nada. Zip. none.
BTW. It's not the KGB anymore -it's the FSB. Time for you to update your knowledge of Russia
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
That ^ looks like a lotta typing just for some inane bullshit nobody will read.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
How do you define legitimacy? What's your metric that allows a ruthless terrorist king for 40 years to claim legitimacy? Jimmy Carter oversee any elections there?
ROFL. Translation= "I got nothing".
You and BAC both need to chill out and do some clear thinking with applied rational analysis, and research besides
"Trump is an oligarch" or some such facile crappola to nowhere.
I suggest realpolitik - it never lies.
Jimmy Carter? what's he - the God of Legitimacy?.
Obama and the world recognized Colonel Qaddafi as legitimate leader ( not king= he replaced king Idris) -so much so that Obama met and shook his hand at the G-8 of 2009.
I appreciate the question if you are being intellectually honest - but here's the quick view
He was recognized president of Libya in good standing ..until we decided "Qadaffi must go" and assassinated him
Nomads observation is accurate. Putin was a soviet era communist.
Big difference between "was" and "is". " Putin is an avowed SOVIET ERA COMMUNIST."
Sure, and he may not pay any price for it. And neither will you for supporting him and Trump.
Or will we all? Come the heck on. As Bac said, you support a total fraud asshole conman..... And putins choice!!!!!
How can you rationalize that?