McCain "info will lead to Rusian scandal"-Graham wants "all things Russian"

[Rune]

"what difference at this point does it make" (Hillary)

what is our relationship with Russia? it's not about "murderous thugs" killing journalists -
it's INTERNATIONAL GEOPOLITICS - i.e. realpolitik

what does realpolitik have to say about improving relations ( to save money/war/death/tensions)
It looks at the realtionship from state to state where they intersect - GLOBALLY

SHUT UP RETARD

 

[anatta]

SHUT UP RETARD

lol..i told you this was above your ability to comprehend..

see if this helps you

 

[Nomad]

talk about a couple of jackasses ..McCain is in search of that Russian scandal by the "murderous KGB thug" Putin
and Graham thinks Trump is a "jackass" - but loves more and more defense spending -especially on Cold War 2.0

Q.How can a public committee "shed more light" on Russian collusion if it can't do classified info?
A. Because its a fishing exhibition designed to put Putin in the worse light to satisfy these Russian hysterical warpigs

This is the new birfer movement.

Indeed...since when does one's political adversaries predetermine one's guilt or innocence? Its simply more "wishful" thinking by the left than any reason other than hate to accuse someone of a non-existent crime. There has been an investigating ongoing for well over a year...and the findings? Nothing, ".....no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia." If Obama had anything other than accusations does anyone really believe that Mr. Trump would be in power as we speak?

Fact: Every day this little voice from the Democrats in DC is getting smaller and smaller......Trump!!!! Trump!! Trump! Trump trump, now its a whisper, trumppppp guiltyyyyyyyyyyyyy We don't know of what yet..but give us time to see what sticks on the wall after we sling it. Mean while Trump just turns around from the attempted back biting and declares

"talk about a couple of jackasses .."

Well, three jackasses actually.

 

[Airstrip One]

it does if it's for Cold War weapons systems. I'm fine with repairing the results of Sequestor -
scrounging for AF parts in "boneyards"and increasing naval power.

What we don't need is bullcrap like Obama's "European Reassurance Initiative" more tanks/personell/missiles
etc pointed at each other in eastern Europe.
That's what McCain and Graham want ( among more and more)

Wouldn't you say that a cold war is preferable to armed conflict? I mean, I'll take the New Look and SDI over a failed regime change any day. Obviously the Cold War involved armed conflicts, but it was spending policies like those of Ike and Reagan that scored us the most bang for the buck.

 

[anatta]

Wouldn't you say that a cold war is preferable to armed conflict? I mean, I'll take the New Look and SDI over a failed regime change any day. Obviously the Cold War involved armed conflicts, but it was spending policies like those of Ike and Reagan that scored us the most bang for the buck.

absolutely cold war is better then a hot war - but the potential for a spark leading to a hot war- increase with more tensions and more confrontations and more escalations

 

[Airstrip One]

absolutely cold war is better then a hot war - but the potential for a spark leading to a hot war- increase with more tensions and more confrontations and more escalations

I submit that you cannot avoid a Cold War with a leader such as Putin. Regarding the current Russian state, there can only cold warriors and people who are naïve.

 

[anatta]

I submit that you cannot avoid a Cold War with a leader such as Putin. Regarding the current Russian state, there can only cold warriors and people who are naïve.

you don't need to escalate it-and only blaming Putin when we did NATO expansion and meddling in elections
( the same thing Russia did) isn't fair either.

Do you have any idea of just how much escalation has happened concurrent with NATO expansion?

Things are different today then in the old cold war as well....

Should the U.S. de-escalate Russian tensions or brace for Cold War 2.0?

Democrats have gone from mocking George W. Bush's naiveté about Putin, to mocking Mitt Romney for describing Russia as America's main geopolitical foe, to spinning theories about Trump being an agent of Russian influence that seem ripped from a right-wing periodical circa 1955.

The ideologues, too, have lost the plot. Sean Hannity is hosting the Russian cat's-paw Julian Assange because he might have dirt on Hillary. The Nation is defending Donald Trump against what it calls the "neo-McCarthyism" of mainstream liberalism. Team-player conservatives are tying themselves in knots explaining or defending Trump's Putin crush; liberal pundits are trying to memory-hole everything they wrote about Romney and Russia in 2012.

This confusion reflects various partisan derangements, plus the destabilizing influence of Trump's strongman shtick. But to some extent confusion is entirely justified. We should be uncertain about how to think about our relationship with Russia, and our parties should be trying on different perspectives, because it isn't clear at all where our national interest vis-à-vis the Russians really lies.

At the root of this uncertainty is the fact that neither the United States nor Russia seems certain exactly what kind of power it intends to be.
During the Cold War, we were (mostly) a status quo power -- practicing containment, building intricate alliance networks, propping up bad actors for fear of something worse -- and the Russians were the revisionists, promoting socialist revolution from Havana to Hanoi.
Then in the early 2000s we seemed to have changed places: Under George W. Bush, America was a revolutionary power, preaching the messianic faith of liberalism and democracy, while Moscow was a friend of strongmen, stability and the Saddam-era status quo.

But now it's a muddle. In the Middle East, throughout the Arab Spring and its aftermath, Washington has remained revisionist while Moscow has labored at realpolitik, seeking to protect the devils that it knows. But at the same time Putin has become opportunistically revisionist in his own right, sensing American weakness and looking for ways to destabilize the Western order -- including through tacit support for Donald Trump.

Unless you're Trump himself, Putin's destabilizing moves -- the Crimean anschluss, the Ukraine invasion, the shadow war against his neighbors and Western governments writ large -- have made it much harder to imagine Moscow as anything but an adversary to be checked, contained, opposed.

But the trajectory of events in the Middle East, where American grand strategy has mostly come to grief and we face a shifting array of foes and rivals, suggests the limits of a "new Cold War" lens. Our primary interest in Syria and elsewhere is not, as it was decades ago, containing Russian expansion. It's containing jihadi terrorism, ending the refugee crisis, restoring some kind of basic order -- and in all these tasks we need a way to work with Moscow if we hope to see them through to any kind of finish.

Which gets at the underlying question here, one that both parties ought to be debating: Just how right was Romney? Russia certainly looks like a more dangerous geopolitical rival today than it did four years ago. But is Putin's regime and its revanchist ambitions the biggest potential danger that we face? Bigger than al-Qaida and ISIS and their epigones? Bigger than the far-richer, far-stronger, and equally authoritarian People's Republic of China?

It is not enough to say that all of them are dangers; statesmen must prioritize, and our priorities are dangerously open-ended and undefined.

If the last four years really are a Cold War 2.0 overture, then our approach to the Middle East and Asia needs to be refashioned with an eye toward winning a new twilight war with Moscow.

But if Beijing is, in the long run, a more important rival than Moscow, if China's capacities and ambitions are more dangerous than Putin's bold play of a weak hand, then we may need a path to de-escalation and wary cooperation with the Russian regime.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...e-escalate-russian-tensions-brace-cold-war-20

 

[Ralph]

Graham wants a showcase to punish Putin ( never mentioning NATO expansion or US meddling in the Ukraine)
McCain is a frothing old man in search of a scandal

McCain is a "Rhino" and supports more liberal causes than conservative causes. McCain's foreign affair policies fall directly in line with the Shadow Government war profiteers supported by those in both parties that use the military as a cover to garner personal wealth and power....through corrupt lobby kickbacks by those who build the weapons of war at a far greater cost than is required. There are unconfirmed rumors of McCain being in bed with organized crime....considering the fact that he dumped his wife and married the heir to a Beer Corporation with ties to organized crime speaks volumes about McCain's real political motives. .

I am interested only in one thing....defending the truth....wherever that truth falls. The more one investigates Mr. McCain the more investigating is required in order to form any basis to reach a conclusion of truth.

 

[anatta]

McCain is a "Rhino" and supports more liberal causes than conservative causes. McCain's foreign affair policies fall directly in line with the Shadow Government war profiteers supported by those in both parties that use the military as a cover to garner personal wealth and power....through corrupt lobby kickbacks by those who build the weapons of war at a far greater cost than is required. There are unconfirmed rumors of McCain being in bed with organized crime....considering the fact that he dumped his wife and married the heir to a Beer Corporation with ties to organized crime speaks volumes about McCain's real political motives. .

I am interested only in one thing....defending the truth....wherever that truth falls. The more one investigates Mr. McCain the more investigating is required in order to form any basis to reach a conclusion of truth.

in other words McCain is a warpig,,,thanks

 

[Airstrip One]

McCain is a "Rhino" and supports more liberal causes than conservative causes. McCain's foreign affair policies fall directly in line with the Shadow Government war profiteers supported by those in both parties that use the military as a cover to garner personal wealth and power....through corrupt lobby kickbacks by those who build the weapons of war at a far greater cost than is required. There are unconfirmed rumors of McCain being in bed with organized crime....considering the fact that he dumped his wife and married the heir to a Beer Corporation with ties to organized crime speaks volumes about McCain's real political motives. .

I am interested only in one thing....defending the truth....wherever that truth falls. The more one investigates Mr. McCain the more investigating is required in order to form any basis to reach a conclusion of truth.

Are you similarly concerned that Douchebag Donald wants to ratchet up military spending?

 

[Airstrip One]

you don't need to escalate it-and only blaming Putin when we did NATO expansion and meddling in elections
( the same thing Russia did) isn't fair either.

Do you have any idea of just how much escalation has happened concurrent with NATO expansion?

Things are different today then in the old cold war as well....

Should the U.S. de-escalate Russian tensions or brace for Cold War 2.0?

Democrats have gone from mocking George W. Bush's naiveté about Putin, to mocking Mitt Romney for describing Russia as America's main geopolitical foe, to spinning theories about Trump being an agent of Russian influence that seem ripped from a right-wing periodical circa 1955.

The ideologues, too, have lost the plot. Sean Hannity is hosting the Russian cat's-paw Julian Assange because he might have dirt on Hillary. The Nation is defending Donald Trump against what it calls the "neo-McCarthyism" of mainstream liberalism. Team-player conservatives are tying themselves in knots explaining or defending Trump's Putin crush; liberal pundits are trying to memory-hole everything they wrote about Romney and Russia in 2012.

This confusion reflects various partisan derangements, plus the destabilizing influence of Trump's strongman shtick. But to some extent confusion is entirely justified. We should be uncertain about how to think about our relationship with Russia, and our parties should be trying on different perspectives, because it isn't clear at all where our national interest vis-à-vis the Russians really lies.

At the root of this uncertainty is the fact that neither the United States nor Russia seems certain exactly what kind of power it intends to be.
During the Cold War, we were (mostly) a status quo power -- practicing containment, building intricate alliance networks, propping up bad actors for fear of something worse -- and the Russians were the revisionists, promoting socialist revolution from Havana to Hanoi.
Then in the early 2000s we seemed to have changed places: Under George W. Bush, America was a revolutionary power, preaching the messianic faith of liberalism and democracy, while Moscow was a friend of strongmen, stability and the Saddam-era status quo.

But now it's a muddle. In the Middle East, throughout the Arab Spring and its aftermath, Washington has remained revisionist while Moscow has labored at realpolitik, seeking to protect the devils that it knows. But at the same time Putin has become opportunistically revisionist in his own right, sensing American weakness and looking for ways to destabilize the Western order -- including through tacit support for Donald Trump.

Unless you're Trump himself, Putin's destabilizing moves -- the Crimean anschluss, the Ukraine invasion, the shadow war against his neighbors and Western governments writ large -- have made it much harder to imagine Moscow as anything but an adversary to be checked, contained, opposed.

But the trajectory of events in the Middle East, where American grand strategy has mostly come to grief and we face a shifting array of foes and rivals, suggests the limits of a "new Cold War" lens. Our primary interest in Syria and elsewhere is not, as it was decades ago, containing Russian expansion. It's containing jihadi terrorism, ending the refugee crisis, restoring some kind of basic order -- and in all these tasks we need a way to work with Moscow if we hope to see them through to any kind of finish.

Which gets at the underlying question here, one that both parties ought to be debating: Just how right was Romney? Russia certainly looks like a more dangerous geopolitical rival today than it did four years ago. But is Putin's regime and its revanchist ambitions the biggest potential danger that we face? Bigger than al-Qaida and ISIS and their epigones? Bigger than the far-richer, far-stronger, and equally authoritarian People's Republic of China?

It is not enough to say that all of them are dangers; statesmen must prioritize, and our priorities are dangerously open-ended and undefined.

If the last four years really are a Cold War 2.0 overture, then our approach to the Middle East and Asia needs to be refashioned with an eye toward winning a new twilight war with Moscow.

But if Beijing is, in the long run, a more important rival than Moscow, if China's capacities and ambitions are more dangerous than Putin's bold play of a weak hand, then we may need a path to de-escalation and wary cooperation with the Russian regime.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...e-escalate-russian-tensions-brace-cold-war-20

Did NATO expansion force Putin to murder those journalists?

 

[Cypress]

it does if it's for Cold War weapons systems. I'm fine with repairing the results of Sequestor -
scrounging for AF parts in "boneyards"and increasing naval power.

What we don't need is bullcrap like Obama's "European Reassurance Initiative" more tanks/personell/missiles
etc pointed at each other in eastern Europe.
That's what McCain and Graham want ( among more and more)

Trump Says U.S. Would ‘Outmatch’ Rivals in a New Nuclear Arms Race
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Friday intensified his threat to “expand” America’s nuclear arsenal, saying he was willing to restart a nuclear arms race even as he released a letter from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that pointed toward the possibility of a “pragmatic” set of understandings between Washington and Moscow.

Echoing the conciliatory approach toward Mr. Putin that he exhibited throughout the campaign, Mr. Trump praised the Russian leader for sending a private holiday greeting that called for the two men to act in a “constructive and pragmatic manner.” In a statement as he made Mr. Putin’s letter public, Mr. Trump said the Russian leader’s “thoughts are so correct.”

But earlier in the day, the president-elect also made clear that he meant what he said in a Twitter post on Thursday when he bluntly threatened to expand America’s nuclear arsenal after more than three decades in which the number of American and Russian weapons has shrunk.

Sweeping aside efforts by his aides to temper his comments, or to suggest that he was merely talking about curbing the spread of nuclear technology, especially to terrorists, Mr. Trump told a talk-show host, Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC: “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/...lear-arms-race-russia-united-states.html?_r=0

 

[Ralph]

Are you similarly concerned that Douchebag Donald wants to ratchet up military spending?

There is a difference between National Defense and War profiteering. Peace through strength. If you knew the least bit about the military and its constitutional mandate you would realize and accept the truth.....Si vis para bellum. Did you not take notice on Trump's attack concerning the costs from companies like Boeing? The federal government exists for one reason....NATIONAL DEFENSE.

Its the democrats that are now in bed with the Shadow Government's continuing support for WAR at any cost for profit........let's kick Russian Ass in order to make Trump look bad. Give me a freak'n break....you damn Fake McCarthy want-a-be. Got another SOCK?

Truth is my objective.....you go play politics and destroy the nation. Continue to bury yourself in a demonstration of the proper method on HOW TO USE A SHOVEL. FYI: That douche bad owns your ass now.....Executive Office, The Senate, The House, and SCOTUS. Its check mate every time the communists make a move. Just continue to stall to prevent national security, jobs, illegal immigration....the same damn things that got the communists ass kicked last election. Simply continue the demonstration on how to bury a political party.

 

[anatta]

meh. Trump is sayng we can get along, or if you want to go back to a nuclear arms race ( meaning Russia's new theater nuclear cruise missiles deployment in Europe) we can beat you at that game too..

What is MISSING is the idea Trump is willing to deal with Russia,unlike the IC and Senate Russiaphobes
Notice: McCain wanting yet MORE NATO expansion! Viva Montenegro!! <-- McCain

 

[Rune]

you don't need to escalate it-and only blaming Putin when we did NATO expansion and meddling in elections
( the same thing Russia did) isn't fair either.

Do you have any idea of just how much escalation has happened concurrent with NATO expansion?

Things are different today then in the old cold war as well....

Should the U.S. de-escalate Russian tensions or brace for Cold War 2.0?

Democrats have gone from mocking George W. Bush's naiveté about Putin, to mocking Mitt Romney for describing Russia as America's main geopolitical foe, to spinning theories about Trump being an agent of Russian influence that seem ripped from a right-wing periodical circa 1955.

The ideologues, too, have lost the plot. Sean Hannity is hosting the Russian cat's-paw Julian Assange because he might have dirt on Hillary. The Nation is defending Donald Trump against what it calls the "neo-McCarthyism" of mainstream liberalism. Team-player conservatives are tying themselves in knots explaining or defending Trump's Putin crush; liberal pundits are trying to memory-hole everything they wrote about Romney and Russia in 2012.

This confusion reflects various partisan derangements, plus the destabilizing influence of Trump's strongman shtick. But to some extent confusion is entirely justified. We should be uncertain about how to think about our relationship with Russia, and our parties should be trying on different perspectives, because it isn't clear at all where our national interest vis-à-vis the Russians really lies.

At the root of this uncertainty is the fact that neither the United States nor Russia seems certain exactly what kind of power it intends to be.
During the Cold War, we were (mostly) a status quo power -- practicing containment, building intricate alliance networks, propping up bad actors for fear of something worse -- and the Russians were the revisionists, promoting socialist revolution from Havana to Hanoi.
Then in the early 2000s we seemed to have changed places: Under George W. Bush, America was a revolutionary power, preaching the messianic faith of liberalism and democracy, while Moscow was a friend of strongmen, stability and the Saddam-era status quo.

But now it's a muddle. In the Middle East, throughout the Arab Spring and its aftermath, Washington has remained revisionist while Moscow has labored at realpolitik, seeking to protect the devils that it knows. But at the same time Putin has become opportunistically revisionist in his own right, sensing American weakness and looking for ways to destabilize the Western order -- including through tacit support for Donald Trump.

Unless you're Trump himself, Putin's destabilizing moves -- the Crimean anschluss, the Ukraine invasion, the shadow war against his neighbors and Western governments writ large -- have made it much harder to imagine Moscow as anything but an adversary to be checked, contained, opposed.

But the trajectory of events in the Middle East, where American grand strategy has mostly come to grief and we face a shifting array of foes and rivals, suggests the limits of a "new Cold War" lens. Our primary interest in Syria and elsewhere is not, as it was decades ago, containing Russian expansion. It's containing jihadi terrorism, ending the refugee crisis, restoring some kind of basic order -- and in all these tasks we need a way to work with Moscow if we hope to see them through to any kind of finish.

Which gets at the underlying question here, one that both parties ought to be debating: Just how right was Romney? Russia certainly looks like a more dangerous geopolitical rival today than it did four years ago. But is Putin's regime and its revanchist ambitions the biggest potential danger that we face? Bigger than al-Qaida and ISIS and their epigones? Bigger than the far-richer, far-stronger, and equally authoritarian People's Republic of China?

It is not enough to say that all of them are dangers; statesmen must prioritize, and our priorities are dangerously open-ended and undefined.

If the last four years really are a Cold War 2.0 overture, then our approach to the Middle East and Asia needs to be refashioned with an eye toward winning a new twilight war with Moscow.

But if Beijing is, in the long run, a more important rival than Moscow, if China's capacities and ambitions are more dangerous than Putin's bold play of a weak hand, then we may need a path to de-escalation and wary cooperation with the Russian regime.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...e-escalate-russian-tensions-brace-cold-war-20

Ok Sarah.
Need some dressing for you word salad?
How about Russian?

 

[anatta]

Ok Sarah.
Need some dressing for you word salad?
How about Russian?

i realize you have trouble with " See Spot Run" but that is not my words -
i linked it for you. It's an OP from the Dallas Morning News

 

[Airstrip One]

There is a difference between National Defense and War profiteering. Peace through strength. If you knew the least bit about the military and its constitutional mandate you would realize and accept the truth.....Si vis para bellum. Did you not take notice on Trump's attack concerning the costs from companies like Boeing? The federal government exists for one reason....NATIONAL DEFENSE.

Its the democrats that are now in bed with the Shadow Government's continuing support for WAR at any cost for profit........let's kick Russian Ass in order to make Trump look bad. Give me a freak'n break....you damn Fake McCarthy want-a-be. Got another SOCK?

Truth is my objective.....you go play politics and destroy the nation. Continue to bury yourself in a demonstration of the proper method on HOW TO USE A SHOVEL. FYI: That douche bad owns your ass now.....Executive Office, The Senate, The House, and SCOTUS. Its check mate every time the communists make a move. Just continue to stall to prevent national security, jobs, illegal immigration....the same damn things that got the communists ass kicked last election. Simply continue the demonstration on how to bury a political party.

If you don't hate the Russian regime, then you hate America.

 

[Airstrip One]

meh. Trump is sayng we can get along, or if you want to go back to a nuclear arms race ( meaning Russia's new theater nuclear cruise missiles deployment in Europe) we can beat you at that game too..

What is MISSING is the idea Trump is willing to deal with Russia,unlike the IC and Senate Russiaphobes
Notice: McCain wanting yet MORE NATO expansion! Viva Montenegro!! <-- McCain

What does Russia need to do for you to determine that, no, in fact we cannot get along with them?

 

[anatta]

What does Russia need to do for you to determine that, no, in fact we cannot get along with them?

well you have to look at what we've done. An Obama Russian reset with no real reset in perspectives.
Obama utterly dismissing Putin as a world player ( he called Russia a regional power)-
and again not even trying to talk to Putin ( and his "bad boy slouching").

As to Bush he came up against a Putin he didn't understand,and was guided by Condi Rice and the neocons.
As to B.Clinton - we did a leapfrog in NATO expansion..
So what we have been doing so far is basically been shoving a shit sandwich @ Putin and telling him to enjoy it.

There has to be a desire to avoid Cold War, and then there needs to be lower level talks,
and eventually a Summit where negotiated advances toward peaceful co-existence are signed into a Treaty.

We've done this before with the USSR. So it's not like it can't be done again.

Go thru something like this outline,and then if we still have an escalating Cold war -Ok
at least we tried. The problem with McCain is he doesn't want any of this-he prefers Cold war