Trump: "Putin's backing an evil person"

anatta said:
I do NOT give a fvck about Syria. It's a Russian client state,let the Russians deal with it.

I do care about Cold War 2.0,, and guess what? we have NATO expansion once again,
it was expected but it more of the same

Trump approves Montenegro's NATO membership


http://thehill.com/policy/international/328270-trump-approves-montenegros-nato-membership
he treaty signing comes after the Senate on Mach 28 voted overwhelmingly to back Montenegro joining NATO.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah) were the only two Senate lawmakers to oppose the treaty, arguing that allowing Montenegro to join does little to help U.S. national security interests.



Paul also blocked a vote on the treaty earlier in March, setting off Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.).

McCain blasted Paul on the Senate floor at the time, saying that the “senator from Kentucky is now working for [Russian President] Vladimir Putin."

But lawmakers from both parties stressed that the move will help push back against a resurgent Russia.
Click to expand...

Asstrollnomical

NYETO is like a supernova blowing out against Russia, leaving behind a black hole at home filled with Muslime.
 
anatta said:
some interview...Trump discovers barrel bombs.

Putin: "US/Russian relations at worst ever under Trump".
++

Bannon is banished, McMaster the Russiaphobe and Kushner the globalist are the current Rasputin networks.

Everybody's happy that Trump becomes part of the warmongers
Click to expand...

The gracious thing to do is admit you were wrong.

It was obvious to any sentient being, any higher life form, that Drumpf was a belligerent war monger from the get go.
 
Cypress said:
The gracious thing to do is admit you were wrong.
It was obvious to any sentient being, any higher life form, that Drumpf was a belligerent war monger from the get go.
Click to expand...
you simply do not understand geo-politics. One of the reasons I oppose Cold War 2.0 was because of the inability of the Obama adm to effectively deal with Putin.
Putin made great strides in the middle east as well as Crimea.For gawds sake even Netanyahu went to Moscow while Obama was POTUS, as did el-Sisi of Egypt.

Given the inability of Obama to deal with Putin -his only response was the European Reassurance Initiative -
it's better to come to geo-political understanding ( spheres of influence) with Putin then just amping up weapons.
Putin was winning the "spheres" game. NATO expansion and Cold War 2.0 do not change that.

But if you can effectively push back on Putin -certainly that is better for US interests,
in that all roads do not continue to lead to Moscow..like they did under Obama.

Is Trump effectively pushing back?
It looks that way in Syria -that along with re-establishing our Sunni state relationships and Netanyahu's
return to confidence in US policy - and a good working relationship w/ el_Sisi
is an effective counter to Obama's fecklessness,and Putin's adventurism.

What is not effective is what you and McCain want..mindless "nyets" .

Mindless sanctions ( which are inherently reactive) and expressions of "we are at war with Russia."
Or Hillary's overkill of "shutting down all of Assad's airfields"- are just geo-political temper tantrums instead of effective countermoves.

You have to play chess with Putin.
you can't take our pieces and go home,and you can't just have a temper tantrum and disrupt the board.
Is Trump playing?? so far so good. Time will tell
 
Even as he took a harsher tone on the longtime US adversary, Trump still seemed to offer some reassurance in a Wednesday appearance with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, saying that, "It would be wonderful ... if NATO and our country could get along with Russia." On Thursday, Trump tweeted that, "things will work out fine between the U.S.A. and Russia. At the right time everyone will come to their senses & there will be lasting peace!"
Click to expand...
transactional foreign policy..if not full triangualtion
 
coolbreeze said:
Watch Trump work, learn something.
Rather than ridicule the best mind to hold this office in two generations
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


hes a fucking idiot



he does have the smarts to deligate



its how he stayed wealthy



the military is now making these decisions idiot
 
anatta said:
Trump became the foreign policy establishment -the Russiaphobes did him in
Click to expand...
Trump and the Chinese have much in common.

The Chinese have a Great Wall and he wants​ to build one as well.

They have Chinese food and Trump loves eating it.

The Chinese have the Great Firewall to stop people using the internet, Trump has his own people that try to stop him using the internet.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
^ lol..

I'm still hoping for some geo-political chess playing w/Putin and not all this
sanctions, annexations,mindless escalations by inertia towards Cold War 2.0
 
anatta said:
I do NOT give a fvck about Syria. It's a Russian client state,let the Russians deal with it.

I do care about Cold War 2.0,, and guess what? we have NATO expansion once again,
it was expected but it more of the same

Trump approves Montenegro's NATO membership
http://thehill.com/policy/international/328270-trump-approves-montenegros-nato-membership
he treaty signing comes after the Senate on Mach 28 voted overwhelmingly to back Montenegro joining NATO.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah) were the only two Senate lawmakers to oppose the treaty, arguing that allowing Montenegro to join does little to help U.S. national security interests.



Paul also blocked a vote on the treaty earlier in March, setting off Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.).

McCain blasted Paul on the Senate floor at the time, saying that the “senator from Kentucky is now working for [Russian President] Vladimir Putin."

But lawmakers from both parties stressed that the move will help push back against a resurgent Russia.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Everyone should be concerned about Syria and every other country Putin influences. NATO was created not to start wars, but to prevent them. The role of the State Dept, my employer, is to prevent war through discourse. Our current administration would prefer saber rattling and irrational dependence on conspiracy theories and fake news to inflame the situation rather than defuse it.

Trump could very easily hand over the free world, it's economies, and will of the people of this nation in exchange for even more power he thinks Putin will afford him.
 
Cadillac Man said:
I have to disagree. Everyone should be concerned about Syria and every other country Putin influences. NATO was created not to start wars, but to prevent them. The role of the State Dept, my employer, is to prevent war through discourse. Our current administration would prefer saber rattling and irrational dependence on conspiracy theories and fake news to inflame the situation rather than defuse it.

Trump could very easily hand over the free world, it's economies, and will of the people of this nation in exchange for even more power he thinks Putin will afford him.
Click to expand...
It's hilarious you worked at State under HRClinton and are talking about preventing war in the same breathe. :rolleyes:
Which war did she "prevent"? Iraq or Libya?

NATO may have been created as a counter to the USSR, but NATO expansionism is much to blame
for surrounding Putin. I won't even get into the Euromaiden and Victoria Nuland's "fuck the EU" mindset.

Syria is a long time Russian client state...
No offense, but hopefully you are not part of the diplomatic corps..
 
anatta said:
It's hilarious you worked at State under HRClinton and are talking about preventing war in the same breathe. :rolleyes:
Which war did she "prevent"? Iraq or Libya?

NATO may have been created as a counter to the USSR, but NATO expansionism is much to blame
for surrounding Putin. I won't even get into the Euromaiden and Victoria Nuland's "fuck the EU" mindset.

Syria is a long time Russian client state...
No offense, but hopefully you are not part of the diplomatic corps..
Click to expand...

While I wasn't at State when the Iraq war began, I don't recall Clinton being there either.

As far as Libya's concerned, I was. Libya was a civil war with intervention by the UN with assistance by it's member countries. While mistakes were made, my opinion is that no one person could be blamed, although Clinton was a part of the equation for it's failure.

Was the decision to oust Muammar al-Qaddafi a bad one? Not my judgement, not yours.
 
Cadillac Man said:
While I wasn't at State when the Iraq war began, I don't recall Clinton being there either.

As far as Libya's concerned, I was. Libya was a civil war with intervention by the UN with assistance by it's member countries. While mistakes were made, my opinion is that no one person could be blamed, although Clinton was a part of the equation for it's failure.

Was the decision to oust Muammar al-Qaddafi a bad one? Not my judgement, not yours.
Click to expand...
you're nuts. Libya was the very worst decision,and it was driven by HRClinton
You write blase stuff like
"While mistakes were made, my opinion is that no one person could be blamed, although Clinton was a part of the equation for it's failure."
Click to expand...
not understanding that we took a state under Qaddafi that was an ally on the global war on terror and turned it into a failed terrorist state. did you even know ISIS is in Libya as a result?

Th US had to go in again and bomb advances by the local Misrata Brigades in Sirte just last year,
and while ISIS has been diffused,it did not go away.

That's the handiwork of HRClinton. You severely need to do some research.

I hope you are a mail clerk or janitor or something,and not any part of the diplomats.
No offense but it scares the crap out of me you are working at State in any other capacity.
Thank God at least Hillary Clinton is out of there -the whole place needs a good purge

start here - from your's and Clinton's own State dept -Clinton was the prime mover on "regime change"

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23898
From: Jake Sullivan [mailtc
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D; Nuland, Victoria
Subject: tick tock on libya

this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes.
but it shows S' Clinton's leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's libya policy from start to finish. let me know what you think. toria, who else might be able to add to this?

Secretary Clinton's leadership on Libya HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.
 
here is background. It's the New York Times. It's written as pro-Clinton as possible ( being the NYTimes)
but it does gt the basic fact correct.I hope you understand Clinton uses the term "Smart Power" as bombing the crap out of Libya, without risking US boots n the ground. i.e. Interventionism on the cheap
++

Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=1

The president was wary.
The secretary of state was
persuasive.
But the ouster
of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi
left Libya a failed state
and a terrorist haven.

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE
FEB. 27, 2016
 
Given the fact that the rumpF sent the "armada" to the coast off NK, bombed Syria & Afghani-NAM w/ his YUGE BOMB, how is he any different??
 
Bill said:
Given the fact that the rumpF sent the "armada" to the coast off NK, bombed Syria & Afghani-NAM w/ his YUGE BOMB, how is he any different??
Click to expand...
c'mon. Syria and Afgh are 1 shot deals. Afgh is the same as Libya
"regime change interventionism" but they all own that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top