Russia Intervened Because They Wanted Trump In Power? Really ?

So all versions of an "increased presence" are created equally? Cmon, you are obviously smarter than that. Obama also was actively fighting against ISIS. I guess you would then conclude that a drastic increase in troop levels for the fight is the same thing.

A widely announced no fly zone designed to prevent Assad overflights in attacks against his people is indeed a "serious" confrontation. Its even a little more serious than sanctions.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Yes I trust that Clinton advocated a no fly zone. No I don't think that makes her a true Hawk.

I was a vocal opponent of Trump up until the general election, because at that point, I FAR preferred him to Hillary. Its not so much about hearing what I wanted, rather it was using the totality of my political watching experience to determine which parts I believe to be rhetoric, and which parts I believe to be legitimate guiding principles of his agenda. So far, my assumptions seem to be correct. He said that he would project American dominance, and with his retaliation against Assad, posturing towards N Korea, and increased military spending in his budget, I would say that seems to be the embodiment of those promises. You don't REALLY think that I had more prescience than did Putin do you ?

It seems that the vague assertion of dominance seems to have manifested itself in the form of an aggressive response to Assad, strong posturing toward N Korea, and a budget proposal that significantly increases military spending. You don't REALLY think that I had more prescience than did Putin do you ?

They may hate Clinton, but by in large they voted for her. Her winning would require their support. Hillary is NOTHING if not pragmatic. The pragmatic course of action would be to not go too far in alienating a vital component of your base. That vital component may hold their nose and ignore a course of action one step more aggressive than sanctions, but going much beyond that would put their already tenuous support in SERIOUS jeopardy.

I hardly think that in the midst of a "Russia stole the election" narrative, that current anti Russian sentiment is indicative of much other than supporting the CURRENT party narrative. Prior to that, about the only thing you heard from the left about Russia was the giggling at Obama's "the 80's called and want their foreign policy back" quip that was said in response to the Republican candidate identifying Russia as the most pressing current geo political threat in the 2012 election.

 

Point out something specific with which you disagree, and then expound upon it with your opinion backed up by validating evidence if applicable. You too can take part in a productive discussion. You aren't bound by the folly of your past.

 

I will reiterate the words in my post that directly addressed this subject and that you oddly are ignoring in your response.

"You could attempt to argue that Russia would take exception and provoke a conflict, but that CERTAINLY isn't the prevailing wisdom on the subject. You cannot however legitimately argue that Clintons DESIRE is for a direct conflict, which is the tenuous position that you re trying to hold in this conversation"

Yes, that argument can be made, and you will find some people that have that particular fear. You on the other hand, are arguing that Clinton WANTS Russia to defy the no fly zone, because deep down she WANTS a direct conflict with Russia, which is an ENTIRELY different argument. You are taking the reasoned argument expressing fear of what could happen with a no fly zone, inexplicably assuming that means she WANTS a conflict with Russia, and then pretending like they are the same argument. They are NOT.

 

It was James Clappers opinion that it would.

 

I thought that was already established and taken into account in my response when I said "Yes, that argument can be made, and you will find some people that have that particular fear".

 

ISIS is an enemy that we can fight conventionally. Russia isn't because of the nuclear threat.

Yes, potentially shooting down Russian planes conducting air strikes on behalf of the Syrian regime is serious.

Enforcing humanitarian norms isn't exactly projecting American dominance.

This isn't really related to Russia.

Even his proposed increases aren't some kind of massive Reagan-era buildup, just a partial undoing of the Obama-era sequester.

No, you have far less. Trump is pretty bad for long-term American influence in Europe and for the global stability of a status quo that hurts Russia.

Or, alternatively, taking a more hawkish position could cause Republican turnout to fall by a margin of 1-2% in key states and the Democrats could win. You seem to want to maintain the position that both Hillary's campaign promises are ironclad but that her private positions indicated by leaked private speeches are somehow less relevant. Sanctions and no-fly zones are substantive escalations that are more tangible than random hand-waving gestures towards American supremacy.

2012 was a pretty long time ago. In recent years there's been a major shift, with the left being highly critical of Russia's stance towards gay rights and the belief that Russia is responsible for backing far-right movements both in Europe and in the US. Culminating, of course, in the hysteria following the election. The Trump-as-Russian-puppet narrative has been opportunistically flamed by the party, but the general anti-Russian sentiment has been rising naturally for several years now.

 

Agreed. Although I'm not sure what the relevance is in the context of our discussion. We already addressed this concept in a fair amount of detail.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that Clinton's belief is that Russia would NOT violate the theoretical no fly zone. Based on the relative strength of Russia's position, I would wholly agree with that assessment. Enforcing sanctions could ALSO theoretically anger the target enough to resort to military action. I would tend to believe that it wouldn't. In truth, any action taken to ameliorate the actions of a foe have the potential to provoke an aggressive response. There is a hierarchy of increasingly aggressive measures, and a no fly zone is undeniably fairly low on that hierarchy. Increased troop levels, increased missile defense batteries, and an overall assertion of American dominance and leadership I contend are significantly higher on that hierarchy.

If a guy is disrespectful to his girlfriend, and another man punches him in the nose, that is an aggressive/dominant act. Just because you want to title that action with flowery language like calling it chivalry, does NOT ameliorate the fact that it is an aggressive dominance asserting act. The operative word in your statement is "enforcing". Trump enforced humanitarian norms by supporting the same red line that Obama threatened and then let slide. In other words, he reasserted American dominance and leadership.

Its not related to Russia, but it IS related to the notion of reasserting American Dominance and leadership.

An increase nonetheless. Putin doesn't desire an increase. Putin would prefer a candidate that wants to take defense spending, and shift it toward domestic social programs.

That's your belief. My belief is that Europe, if for no other reason, has NO CHOICE but to follow American leadership because they aren't capable of actually defending themselves and have shown no desire whatsoever to change that state of affairs. In my opinion, a reassertion of our dominance only serves to strengthen long term influence rather than the opposite. In my opinion, Obama's tactics served to significantly weaken our influence.

Or alternatively we could say that Hillary's hawkish posturing was a ruse to attempt to capture some of the center that was displeased with Obamas hands off international policy. All candidates from both sides campaign to the far reaches of their party in order to win the nomination, and then jump to the center in the general election. It is the voters job to determine which position is legit, their Primary or their General election posturing. In my opinion, Hillary made the calculation that she had the nomination in the bag, and decided to present a defense position that is more amenable to the middle. I personally do not buy the Hillary is a hawk narrative. Nothing in her history backs up that narrative. I do firmly believe that she would have instituted a no fly zone, and she would have in fact had plenty of Republican support in doing so. I don't believe however that the no fly zone position is indicative that she had the stomach for more aggressive measures. More aggressive measures would require a reassertion of American dominance and leadership, and I don't believe that is what Hillary is all about.

2012 isn't that long ago, and Russia didn't become the focus of the lefts ire UNTIL Trump made mention of Putin being a strong leader in comparison to Obama during a Republican Primary debate. At that point, the left took that comment and twisted it to mean that Trump approves of all Putin actions, when in fact he was solely referring to his strength in the way that he projects power. It by no means meant that he approves of Putins expansion desires or anything else for that matter.

And so a new narrative was born, where Trump is supposedly a Putin lover, and Russia for the first time ever, vocally oppose Russia. Prior to this, you hardly ever heard a substantive peep from the left about Russia, EXCEPT to giggle at Obamas quip in the prior election.

 

Pure bullshit

 

You referenced increased conventional quantity as relevant in terms of American presence when it comes to Russia.

Increase troop levels and missile batteries doesn't do anything compared to a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone would effect the actual military situation on the ground in Syria, and Russia backing down in Syria after what happened to Gaddafi in Libya would be a major loss of face for Russia. It would severely damage their credibility as a world power that can keep promises to defend its allies.

Enforcing sanctions has an entirely different dynamic. Whereas Russia can simply keep conducting air strikes in the face of a no-fly zone, and thus force the US to shoot down a Russian plane or back down, sanctions simply sap the economic strength of Russia over time. If they were to retaliate to sanctions with force they would be initiating violence.

You keep waving around "assertion of American dominance and leadership" as if marching a bunch of soldiers and equipment up and down the Russian border means anything in terms of substantive diplomacy between nuclear powers. We already have soldiers and equipment next to Russia. They can't invade NATO states without provoking a nuclear conflict.

More like we're watching a guy beat the crap out of his girlfriend and then slapping him on the wrist and threatening more to come if he pulls out the knife for a third stab. It's not particularly dominant- it's come far too late to be anything but saving face after the weakness shown by the Obama administration. It's hardly leadership either, since Trump spent his campaign talking about how he doesn't care about international norms when it comes to security.

We could triple the size of the military but if it's all stationed around China while Ukraine is annexed by Putin then it's hardly relevant to being anti-Russian. If it has nothing to do with Russia then there's little it has to do with the debate over whether Trump has a harder stance towards Russia than Hillary.

Hillary never promised a decrease in defense spending in favor of social programs.

"Provide budgetary certainty to facilitate reforms and enable long-term planning. The recent budget deal reached between the Congress and the White House is a promising first step in providing government agencies with much needed fiscal stability. But we must go further by ending the sequester for both defense and non-defense spending in a balanced way."

This is straight from her website. Both Hillary and Trump made vague promises to strive for both a strong US military and cuts against waste.

There's been large conventional military buildups in Poland as well as other eastern-European states. However this is irrelevant compared to the fact that multiple European states are part of the nuclear umbrella maintained by the NATO alliance. "Obama's tactics" by the end of his presidency involved increasing NATO presence along the Russian border, so I'm not sure how you think he's weakening our influence in Europe more than a candidate who is severely unpopular among Europeans.

And Europeans do have a choice. Russia has an economy around the size of Italy. The Red Army that menaced western civilization throughout the cold war has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. They are in no position to simply sweep through Europe without provoking nuclear war even if America just up and left without warning. Even if the Russians could accomplish such a miraculous feat, they would still have just as much a choice to bow to Russian hegemony as America would to sit back and watch it happen.

She made these promises in private to her donors. Her husband was responsible for expanding NATO and for intervening in the Balkans. Personally I can't imagine Hillary is "about" anything other than clawing up the ladder of power, plus a little bit of self-righteous feminism thrown in. I don't see how she would have any problem using the military to show 'how tough a woman can be'.

2012 was a hell of a long time ago as far as modern political narratives move. Russia has been a target of leftist ire since at least the Sochi Olympics and the "gay propaganda" ban. I'm not going to dispute that the left has been twisting Trump's comments, although I think it's pretty weak not to describe expansionist desires as part of a "dominant" or "strong" attitude.

I just don't think you have been following "the left" in any substantive degree. Russia bashing has been as mainstream left as the Daily Show and those other idiot programs for years now.

 

That reference was made as an analogy to the notion that you put forth which was that since Obama has increased (slightly) a US presence, therefore no further build up is necessary, or something along those lines.

You think that a no fly zone is some sort of insurmountable action for Putin. I don't, and we have both had more than our fair say on the subject. Its time to let the reader decide, rather than continually rehashing the same ground again and again, and again.....

Asserting American dominance is not necessarily about marching soldiers up and down the borders. It is a mindset that we are the baddest MF'er on the block(which is 100% correct), and we are no longer going to sit idly by without imposing our will as it best serves OUR desires. To the winner goes the spoils.

I would say the retaliatory bombing was precisely the right course of action. It was proportional and sent the right message. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to say on the subject.

An increase in military spending provides more options. If world circumstances diverts those extra resources to China, that STILL leaves resources that would have otherwise been used for China that are available for use with Russia. A wealthier man has more options where to spend his money than does a poorer man.

I would venture to say that EVERY presidential candidate makes vague promises of a strong military and eliminating waste, the question then becomes whom do you believe more? Whom put more of an emphasis on a strong military? Since the military is the recipient of a strong military, whom did military members support ?

Trump to all of the above.

He weakened our influence by failing to provide leadership. NATO looks to us in order to provide that leadership, and in that absence, the world community was basically a rudderless ship. ISIS should have NEVER been able to get a foothold in Iraq. They friggen drove in pickup truck convoys across Iraq and were sitting ducks for even a modest response during that 1 or 2 week buildup that was widely reported while it was happening. That happenedbecause WE didn't provide the leadership to which the world community had become accustomed. An ounce of cure is worth a pound of prevention, and the Iraqi ISIS occupation could have easily been prevented.

Hillary is a Democrat through and through. Fundementally, modern Democrats DO NOT support a truly aggressive military stance. Hillary is much like her husband in that she stands for nothing, OTHER than herself. One can believe that Hillary isn't really hawkish, and instead only plays one out of political expediency after calculating that in her mind she has the nomination in the bag and is going to disengenously capture the center by pretending to be more hawkish than she truly is. One can also believe that shes a Democrat that doesn't mind angering her base because deep down she truly is a hawk and is acting out of her heart what she believes is right. I tend to believe the former.

Being that Russia has been in the news since they took advantage of Obamas weakness in not enforcing the red line and jumped into the fray in Syria, of course they have been in the news. The foaming at the mouth ire that we now see however, is purely an outgrowth of Trump hatred.

It is entirely possible to support how one is able to project power, while not support the cause for which that power is projected.

 

Oh gosh! You want to get me in trouble with the mods for posting off topic. Ok... briefly

:

I think the statement's inaccuracy speaks for itself. Hillary was not cozy with Russia... and certainly not "regarding the Uranium deal" As a matter of fact, by all accounts Putin hated Hillary over any other U.S. political figure.

 

Putin is now admitting this and Trumpers are trying to make excuses for it

 

Now there you go, bringing FACTS into a perfectly good rant.
Putin wants discord and disunity in the West - and THAT is Trump. The so-called president applauded Brexit, which weakens the EU - Long a dream of Putin - Trump has shaken NATO - the arch-enemy of Russia - Trump backed LePen, who would have also weakened the EU - Trump has snubbed Angela Merkel, head of the strongest EU nation - ALL IN LINE WITH Putin's wishes.
All those meetings by Sessions, Kushner, Carter Page, Flynn, Roger Stone - that they lied about - said they didn't happen - ALL of them were innocent?
The Russians have money - and Trump only cares about money.

 

And it turns out that the Trump Admin was trying to lift sanctions from the minute they got into the White House

 

My comment had nothing to do with you getting in trouble with the mods, and everything to do with you learning how to behave like an adult.


:

According to the New York Times, as Secretary of State, Hillary signed off on a deal that gave 1/5 of all US uranium production to a Russian company with direct ties to Putin.

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

The New York Times article went on to further explain that the companies owner Mr. Giustra went on to donate $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

I could have described the above transactions in a lot of ways. To say it was "COZY", is really a rather measured, understated explanation of what the New York Times reported actually happened. Are you denying that what the New York Times reported actually happened?

Do you believe that saying " by all accounts Putin hated Hillary over any other US political figure" somehow invalidates the reality of the occurrence that the New York Times reported?

 

Still with this?

A. Clinton did not personally and singally sign off on that. It was about 11 different agencies
B. She received no gain from it
C. There were no licenses sold do that Uranium could not leave the country

So let's stop with that lie...mmmmkay?

 

If the NYT reported that, they are wrong. In all aspects. Hillary did not sign-off. She didn't even sit in the committee that analyzed the deal. And the deal didn't give any uranium to a Russian company. Only thing in that statement that has any truth is the "ties to Putin" part. But only because practically all Russian companies are tied to Putin.

But that is off-topic.

Especially the rest, which then goes off on the Clinton Foundation. So that's a third topic.

Forget behaving like an adult. I would be happy if you just try to stay on one topic. And to make sense...

And totally inaccurate. Jumping from one off-topic to another does not add to its validity. If there is any world leadere that was not "cozy" with Hillary, that was Putin. Who blamed her for blowing the whistle on his own voting fraud. But that's another topic, so I won't go there.

What I can tell you is that it doesn't validate your statement. The article is pure garbage. What invalidates that article is that it starts with a tendentious sensationalist headline, and then chooses words carefully to try to justify it, avoiding when possible anything that would negate the tendentious headline. And then tries to imply some sort of "nefarious deal" between Hillary and a non profit organization that happens to have her last name. Pretty much what you do here. And it's what raises questions about how serious the OP was intended to be.

Even if anybody gave to a non-profit organization that does everything in the open, and for which you can account for every penny spent (because we have their tax returns), and which only provides great charity work; to get on her good side, it's a huge leap to imply anything nefarious. Especially since she had no power to impede or approve the deal, and that she didn't even sit in the Committee . It's not like she was meeting world leaders at a Golf Club that she owned in order to increase profits by using her position to promote it., and then refused to make income tax returns public. That would have been really suspicious of abuse of power.

But anything like that would only bother real adults who are sincerely concerned about quid-pro-quo in the government, right?

On the other hand. If she did anything illegal... go ahead an lock her up. I have no particular sympathy for Hillary. I was a Bernie supporter myself (actually Elizabeth Warren supporter, but she wouldn't run). I believed Hillary would do an acceptable overall job as President. Certainly much better than Trump. But I don't care for her personally. If she did anything illegal, her tax returns are there, the Clinton Foundation's tax are there. If she was "cozy" with the Russians, show your proof to the Mueller Committee, and lest's see how far that takes you guys. The administration she belonged to, unlike this one, believed that questions the people had deserved answers. So stop trying to lecture me on how an "adult" behaves, and start asking your own party to behave like one.

 

You will have a hard time arguing that the New York Times is biased in favor of Republicans. I have submitted a New York Times article as validation of my claim. New York Times is considered the paper of record, and while there are legitimate claims that the New York Times is biased, that bias CERTAINLY is NOT in favor of Republicans. With that being the case, I am not sure that I could possibly provide a more credible link on the subject.You on the other hand have summarily declared it "garbage" while not presenting any type of a link that validates your summation that disputes what the New York Times said on the subject ( much less a CREDIBLE link). A CREDIBLE link in the hand is worth two in the bush.

You go further to say that the New York Times implies a nefarious deal and to some extent it does make that implication, but I specifically did not. What I said was "cozy". There are in fact indications that lead many to believe ( including the New York Times) this may have been a quid pro quo, but I made no such assertion and have no desire to argue that there was a quid pro quo. It is what it is. Money flowed to the Clinton foundation, and Putin was able to expand his share of the world uranium market after getting approval from Clinton's State Department. That much is not in doubt. Any further conclusions can be drawn by the reader of that information, and Ive made no attempt to imply any further conclusion. To call money flowing to the Clinton Foundation in concert with Putin expanding his share of the uranium market "cozy" is hardly a bombastic or misleading statement. Why you have decided to make such an innocuous statement your "Waterloo", I find puzzling to say the least.

In response to your claim that the New York Times article is off topic to the statement that Hillary and Russia were "cozy" in regards to the uranium deal, that is nothing short of PREPOSTEROUS. How can an article from what is considered a credible source, that details the relationship between Hillary, Russia, and Uranium be off topic to that discussion? That declaration doesn't make one iota of sense. You are trying to get me into an argument about quid pro quo, when I have made no such assertion. The only assertion that I have made is a VERY INNOCUOUS label of cozy. Cozy is a very low hurdle to clear, and the incontrovertible fact that Putin got his desire, and the Clinton foundation received millions, is MORE than enough to clear that hurdle.

I applaud that you have taken the time to post something that took you some time and thought as opposed to what I'm accustomed to seeing from you which are mindless hit and run posts. Now you just need to take it one step further and put together an actual coherent argument. We will make a political debater out of you yet. You are making progress. Keep working on it!

 

If you are replying, quote the person to whom you are directing your comments if you are looking for a response..

A. The State Department was required to sign off on the deal. Clinton ran the State Department at that time.
B. The Clinton foundation received millions of dollars. That doesn't mean there was a quid pro quo, and at no point have I claimed there was a quid pro quo, although the New York Times seemed to be implying such a connection. I labeled those concurrent transactions "cozy", which is a rather innocuous, understated description.
C. Due to poor grammar, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but I most certainly have not made any claims about licenses. This looks like a poorly worded attempt at putting forth a strawman argument, but if you want to explain yourself further, I welcome you to do so.

 

Yes, since invading NATO countries and killing US troops would provoke a nuclear response.

If it's just a feel-good mindset then you don't actually need a larger military budget, do you?
Or to meet tangible strategic goalposts- like removing Russian support from Syria via a no-fly zone.

I agree completely, it was a good action that showed calculated restraint.
But it still wasn't some grand display of dominance and leadership.

More options to do what, exactly? Invade a nuclear power?
And I agree, a wealthier man ha more options where to spend his money than does poorer man.

Perhaps we shouldn't sink ourselves into deeper debt blowing money on weapons we can't use.

NATO has almost next to nothing to do with Iraq, and our interventions in the Middle East has been incredibly unpopular in Europe, not to mention globally. Iraq fell because we withdrew our military which was propping up a government that held next to no legitimacy in half the country. European countries haven't been begging to help intervene, held back by Obama's failure to lead the way. The only reason other NATO countries are involved in our coalitions there is largely because we heavily pressured their governments into doing so.

She stands with the neo-liberal world order, and that order has been demanding a stronger military stance against Russia. The idea that Hillary, the frigid **** that she appears to be, would buck against what her donors are demanding because of some inner kindness is laughable. And the idea that Trump doesn't do things based on political expediency and self-interest is just plain stupid. There are dozens of ways that Trump has done self-serving things at the expense of what he's promised the country. He's been charging money for access to his office at every opportunity. Where's the infrastructure investment? The Wall? The health care bill that isn't complete garbage? What I've seen is chest-beating, nepotistic self-enrichment, and truckload of gifts moving through congress for corporations and the wealthy. The only substantive promise he's managed to fulfill is the reduction in illegal immigration, and that's been the result of perception far more than actual policy change. He's made a bunch of executive orders- all easily wiped away by the next administration, as Obama's supporters have learned the hard way.

It's been rising for years, this has only supercharged it.

 

So am I to assume that ANY buildup over and above Obama levels means thermonuclear war? Do you HONESTLY think Obama was bold enough to buildup exactly to the breaking point?

Feel good mindset is not what I said. A better description is a mindset that is going to assert our strategic advantage when applicable. Feeling good is irrelevant in that equation. No you do NOT need a larger military budget in order to do so, and at no point have I made that assertion. If putting oneself into Putins shoes, it would be logical to assume that he does not desire an increased assertion of American power, OR an increase in American defense spending. One is not necessary for the other, but the combination of the two is inarguably NOT something that Putin would want.

It was an assertive, measured response, which is PRECISELY the tone that I would prefer our President to project. I'm not sure what you mean by a "grand display of dominance", because that sounds to me like something extreme like invading another country. I wouldn't have wanted us to invade Syria over that issue, and Ive never taken the notion of reasserting American dominance to mean that we invade other countries over any provocation. There isn't any value in unnecessarily going to extremes when discussing this subject. I take the notion of reasserting American dominance to be an outgrowth of the "peace through strength" mantra, and the Syrian response is a fine example of such.

More options to DETER our foes. Peace through strength.

This is not a debate about whether increasing military spending is a good or bad idea. This is a discussion of the incontrovertible fact that Trump has vowed to increase military spending, and how that is not an action that Putin would prefer.

You are correct that NATO has almost nothing to do with Iraq. My contention is that it should, and the lack of that being the case is a failure in American leadership. ISIS is a serious problem for the civilized world. The more land they hold, the bigger their projection of power, and the greater their ability to convert new adherents. ISIS drove with pickup trucks across Iraq and took over several towns and lots of geography. The NATO response was nothing until months later. It would have been FAR easier to stop them versus rooting them out after entrenching themselves. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the assertion of US military power during their entry into Iraq would have saved the world a LOT of grief. I would prefer that we had a leader that had the courage to act swiftly. You can rest assured that the military had contingencies put in place to react to this invasion, and the only thing that was lacking was a leader willing to assert our strategic advantage. A lot of the American public believes we should have been more aggressive, which is undoubtedly one of the primary reasons that Trump gained traction with his reassert American dominance message. You can rest assured that Putin would prefer an indecisive leader, and one that puts such an emphasis on the reasserting of American dominance is NOT what Putin would prefer.

I agree that it is laughable that Hillary would do ANYTHING simply because she thinks it is right. On that, we are in full agreement.

Neo Liberal world order is demanding a stronger military stance against Russia ? Can you provide a credible link that makes this assertion? Preferably one from 2015 or before, since that would eliminate the likelihood of it merely being an outgrowth of Trump hate. I don't so much doubt that you can find a link that shows some opposition towards Russia, rather my doubt is that you can show a significant trend of such, specifically from the left prior to Trump being a candidate. When you start throwing around terms like "Neo Liberal World Order", it starts to sound as if its getting into the conspiracy theory realm. My hope is that this can be verified from a legit source.

See above.


P.S. Lets think about wrapping this up. I am all for new concepts and a continuum of conversation and encourage as much, but Id like to stop the topics that are becoming redundant and just being presented with slightly different wording. I am more than happy to let my prior words speak for themselves. We have both had ample opportunity to make our case.

 

No, my point is that any buildup beyond symbolic presence is a waste of resources. There's nothing to be gained, you're not increasing the protection of anyone, and invading a nuclear power isn't feasible to begin with.

Well that's quite the change of tune from "beating up the guy who beats his girlfriend" and "asserting dominance", which sounds entirely like a feel-good mindset. Why would Putin care about increased American defense spending if increased defense spending has no effect on the strategic calculation? What about increased sanctions and a no-fly zone isn't an assertion of strategic advantage?

.

lmao okay but what options exactly? This is what I mean by "vague-handwaving calls to assert dominance" in contrast to actual substantive measures. How does increasing defense spending expand our options for deterrence against Russia?

How does getting NATO to get bogged down in Iraq at the expense of relations with our European allies help American strategic interests whatsoever?

Is it really? They took a bunch of territory full of sympathetic Sunni Muslims who disliked their governments that are now beginning to abandon their cause, using a bunch of stolen American equipment that they don't have any replacements for. as they The Iraqi army stopped retreated as soon as they began defending their own homes- that is, the Shia communities in the central and southern parts of the country. ISIS has done nothing but shrink for the past year- without large-scale American intervention.

To what end? Occupying Iraq for how many more years? Sinking how much money into developing a country full of people who hate us? Spending how much political capital to develop a stable democratic regime in a region full of subversive elements? All for some vague symbolic display of "American dominance"? Thinking Putin cares about how much we waste on Iraq is like imagining America cared how long the Soviets wallowed in Afghanistan.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for- for me to dig up some random article from before the election? Obama was the one who imposed sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Crimea. Western banks have loaned enormous sums of money to Ukraine and sold them huge amounts of weapons. Of course the neoconservative wing of the Republican party has been screaming about Russia for several years as well- no surprise there- but they're barely anything but pro-war liberals to begin with.

You can call the global Western world order whatever you feel like, but it's no conspiracy that there is a concept of "world order", or a "global community" that the Western elite are invested in. Henry Kissinger wrote an entire book about it, called "World Order". Hillary is a neo-liberal, and so are people like her, including most of our financial elite. Thus- "neoliberal" world order. You cannot seriously discuss foreign policy without acknowledging the cooperation and consensus among most trans-Atlantic financial / political elites.

 

This is starting to feel like the movie Groundhog Day. I do not want to keep rehashing the same thing again and again and again. I've made my case on our issues and feel pretty good about the case I have made. I'm sure you feel good about the case you have made. Let the reader decide and lets move on.

In regards to probably the one new topic not already played out, I noticed that you did NOT provide any indication that there has been this rising groundswell of support for action against Russia from the left prior to Trump coming on the scene as you had asserted. Its great that Kissinger wrote a book and all, but that doesn't exactly address the request....lol...and you said earlier that 2012 was ancient history. Since invading Ukraine and supporting Assad, obviously there has been more attention paid to Russia. That doesn't however equate to this groundswel of leftist desire for military action against him. Most hawkish desires emanate from the Right.

 

I have a life and don't want to spend an hour digging up news stories from over two years ago.

The book was about global world order, not left-wing handling of Russia.

Okay

 

Of course not! The NYT is only biased in favor of profits. Same as all Corporate Media.

I don't care where an article is published. If it has value, it's ok to use it as validation. In general, I don't think that an article or a position, or a report should be judged solely on what media it was published (which the right loves doing). And that applies both ways. Since all media is corporate right-wing media anyway (there is no such thing as left-wing media, other than a handful of bloggers). I do believe that they should be judged on the contents of the articles. Not on the name of the media.

This article is biased. I already explained why I say that. It starts with an alarmist headline, and then twists facts to accommodate them to headline, and then hides very relevant data. Therefore, this particular article is worthless.

On the other hand, this has been discussed so many times that it's ludicrous. Especially now that Hillary is irrelevant in today's politics. Hillary did not personally sign off on the deal, she didn't even sit on the committee (the deputy Secretary General did), the Russian company did not receive complete control over the uranium, and the Clinton Foundation's dealing are completely clear, legal and very public.

There is no way you can make a point of Hillary being cozy with Russia (because facts show that she isn't), and the whole Hillary thing is irrelevant and uninteresting anyway.