The Transfer of a Russian ICBM to North Korea?

Yeah-- you sound really grounded in reality.

LOL-- that a supporter of the Party that is against the application of law, to their fearless leader, and which has been making ongoing efforts, to weaken our democracy, is pointing at Democrats, as not being solidly behind these ideas. When I add "projection," to the list of your manifest traits, there is no doubt, that the MAGA cap, fits you.

 

I hate Trump, but there you go again with your Trump Derangement Syndrome!

Just pointing out that this thread is about ICBM to North Korea, not your Morbid Fascination with Trump.

All I can imagine are people frothing at the mouth muttering,"I hate trump, I hate trump . . . " repeatedly while being unable to hold an intelligent conversation without throwing Trump in there because that is all they think about. Especially, when they are incapable of arguing a point, that is their defense mechanism.

 

If you haven't noticed, I am quite capable of, and generally always do, argue my points. That will be the day, when my argument seems a frothing at the mouth, monotonic muttering, in comparison to your argument.

The part of this thread you neglect to mention, is the warming relations between the two ostracized nations, N. Korea and now Russia. As there is a distinct difference between the Right & Left, among aggregate opinions of Putin & Russia-- which attitude plays a significant role in our nation's foreign affairs deportment-- this got a small mention in my OP.

Then a number of the earliest contributors, focused on at least Russia, and sometimes the MAGA connection, as well: FMW, Flyboy56, Tahuyaman, and Chris155au. So I responded to them, just as-- if you've forgotten-- you did, as well. In fact, your own contributions, come across as far more partisan, & subjective opinion, than do my own:

ricmortis said: ↑
Bidenists prefer communism over Democratic laws.

ricmortis said: ↑
Wasn't it the Left who invented Wokism and the Me-Too crybaby unit of which all they do is whine and cry then use Trump Derangement syndrom to infect every thread with their Trump Derangement rants?


So, perhaps a little less imagining of frothing Leftists, and a little more self-awareness of your own posts, would be in order.

 

A country ruled by the Privileged Class is not communism.

 

Neither. I was being sarcastic about the MAGAS. We know how Democrats think about us.

 

About anyone who doesn't follow what left media tells us how to think.

 

MSM protects the Privileged Class which are people from all different political ideologies. They are the Ivy League graduates who believe they are smarter than everyone else and therefore should be the rulers of the planet. The WEF is full of them.

 

Sorry, which conflict?

 

Can you support your claim that Trump was "constrained to deliver" the weapons and that he "dragged his feet?"

 

I wouldn't naturally assume that everyone living in Australia would be aware of this; but for someone like yourself, who seems to pay so much attention to U.S. specific news-- and of course, this story was in the world news, as well-- I cannot fathom how you could be unaware of what was a major brouhaha, over here.

https://www.defensenews.com/congres...us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/

<Snip>
WASHINGTON ― At the center of the latest scandal threatening to take down President Donald Trump is $391 million in military aid that the U.S. leader reportedly asked his staff to freeze for two months before dropping the hold a week ago, under pressure from lawmakers.

On Wednesday, Washington was consumed with a July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. According to a memorandum of the call released by the White House, Zelenskiy asked to buy American-made Javelin anti-tank weapons, and Trump asked Zelenskiy to help him work with U.S. officials to investigate political rivals.
<End Snip>

I assume you do know how to use Google search, so that this snip, above, will be a sufficient start? This withholding of aid, played into Trump's first impeachment. You realize that our Congress has the "power of the purse," so that any military aid package would need come through them, right?

 

What amazes me is the sheep who all think their ideology makes them morally superior when everything they repeat was sheeped to them via MSM verbatim. Many of these sheep are smarter than myself, but still we see cults attract very intelligent people so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

 

Yes I know about the impeachment. What's important is that Trump was in agreement in principle to arm the Ukrainians with this deadly weaponry, he just wanted something in return. If he was so pro-Russia he would not have been. Arming the Ukrainians with deadly weaponry is something that Obama would not do. Then Obama pledged "flexibility" to Russia. I guess Obama is pro-Russia?

Sure, it goes through Congress, but then the President signs off on it. What's your point?

 

There is no reason to assume that Trump agreed, in principle, with the arming if Ukraine. As I'd thought I'd made clear, this initiative originated in Congress, did not come from the White House. Once it was passed, Trump was legally bound to comply, whether he liked the idea or not. So your conclusion, above, is baseless.

Regarding the story with Obama, which you go on to mention, I do not recall the details, there. Can you return the favor, and supply me with a source?

It had been a veto proof majority, in Congress. Had Trump not signed off on it, it still would have passed, only by going over Trump's head. You can imagine, I think, how Trump would find that even more objectionable, than signing a bill which he was against.

 

Arming the Ukrainians with deadly weaponry is something that Obama would not do. Then Obama pledged "flexibility" to Russia. I guess Obama is pro-Russia? Source:

 

He signed off on it without objection. Do you think that Trump was good at holding back? Never quick to speak out, including against Republican members of Congress? If he was against arming the Ukrainians, do you suppose that he wouldn't have communicated this objection to Republicans in Congress? And that even after doing so, Republicans went ahead anyway and got it passed? Yeah, I'm SURE that Trump would have let them get away with that without calling them out! He would have tweeted out something along the lines of: *WEAK Mitch McConnell and RINO Paul Ryan, today passed funding to arm the Ukrainians. Unfortunately with it being a veto proof majority, I am obligated to sign off on it. BUT JUST KNOW THAT I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT! MAGA!* Keeping in mind that Trump regularly spoke out against the US giving NATO as much money as it was giving, so he obviously was not against calling out military funding for other countries.Clearly however, he was okay with this Ukrainian funding. One more question that you need to grapple with: why didn't the US arm Ukraine under Obama?

 

You should probably read the info, at this AP News link.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-u...barack-obama-981ef7feb11053c1340a9d028d6f357b

<Snip>
THE FACTS: Trump and Pence are misrepresenting the amount of aid under Obama and Biden and glossing over their own delays in helping Ukraine.

While the Obama administration refused to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons in 2014 to fight Russian-backed separatists, it offered a range of other military and security aid — not just “blankets.” The administration’s concern was that providing lethal weapons like Javelin anti-tank missiles might provoke Russian President Vladimir Putin to escalate the conflict in the separatist Donbas area of Ukraine near Russia’s border.

By March 2015, the Obama administration had provided more than $120 million in security aid for Ukraine and promised $75 million worth of equipment, including counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Defense Department. The U.S. also pledged 230 Humvee vehicles.
<End Snip>

Are you still taking Trump's claims seriously? I'd thought you were smarter than that. Even if you know that Trump can't be trusted, it's hard to know which Right wing news source one can trust, to not parrot and amplify Trump's lies. The Hill seems good, but I'm guessing they're far too centrist, for your tastes.

 

Sorry, is this supposed to DISPROVE my claim that Obama did not arm the Ukrainians with deadly weaponry?

Which claims?

 

Your impression of Trump's status & power amongst Republicans, reveals a short memory on the subject. Yes, the GOPers were always obsequious towards the Donald, but they became more lily-livered, over time. Five years ago, some even had the spine, at least on this issue, to stand up to Trump. So, I don't know what to tell you, about the anachronistic scenario, you paint, in your post, other than that this did happen, but it didn't go down, the way you are picturing that it would have.

Remember, that some Repubs did take heat, from Trump. Most of these either did not worry, because they were retiring, or eventually decided not to run for re-election, or, for a couple, were actually or essentially, thrown out of the Republican Party. So those with too strong an independent will to be completely cowed, have largely been pruned from the Republican Trumpberry Bush.

Do some boning up on the timeline for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Here are just a smattering of a few short snips:



https://www.defensenews.com/congres...rm-ukraine-break-silence-on-russian-blockade/

<Snip #1>
2018 defense bill authorized US to provide Ukraine maritime aid

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are pressuring U.S. President Donald Trump to take a tougher line on Moscow after an incident at sea between Ukraine and Russia, which is ratcheting tensions between the two neighbors.

Several lawmakers expressed concerns after the Ukrainian navy said Russian ships fired on and seized three of its artillery ships Sunday, wounding six Ukrainian crew members. Russia also closed the Kerch Strait, a key waterway between the Azov Sea and Black Sea, placing the two countries the closest they’ve been to open conflict since Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

The incident suggests U.S. and European actions have failed to deter Russian aggression and raised the question whether Trump will attempt to rally allies.
<End Snip #1>




https://www.defensenews.com/congres...p-to-release-aid-for-ukraine-to-fight-russia/

<Snip #2>
WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is pressuring the Trump administration to release $250 million in military aid to Ukraine.

In a letter sent Tuesday to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, the leaders of the Senate’s bipartisan Ukraine Caucus expressed “deep concerns” as the Trump administration evaluates the aid package.
<End Snip #2>




https://www.defensenews.com/congres...p-to-release-aid-for-ukraine-to-fight-russia/

<Snip #3>
The move to hold up the aid, which helps Ukraine buy lethal weapons and was first reported by Politico last week, sparked bipartisan ire. Lawmakers argue the U.S. must maintain its commitment to help Ukraine defend against Russia-backed separatists, since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

The aid “has helped Ukraine develop the independent military capabilities and skills necessary to fend off the Kremlin’s continued onslaughts within its territory,” the lawmakers wrote. The funding falls under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

Tuesday’s letter to Mulvaney comes from Ukraine Caucus co-chairs Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., as well as Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.; Dick Blumenthal, D-Conn.; and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. Johnson chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation, and Shaheen is its top Democrat.

“U.S.-funded security assistance has already helped turn the tide in this conflict, and it is necessary to ensure the protection of the sovereign territory of this young country, going forward,” they wrote.
<End Snip #3>




https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-ukraine-military-aid-russia-1689531

<Snip #4>
But the delays come amid questions over Trump’s approach to Russia, after a weekend in which the president repeatedly seemed to downplay Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine and pushed for Russia to be reinstated into the Group of Seven, an annual gathering of the world’s largest advanced economies. The review is also occurring amid a broader internal debate over whether to halt or cut billions of dollars in foreign aid.
<End Snip #4>

 

"Obsequious" how?

The 'funding Ukraine with deadly weaponry' issue?

It "did happen", as in Trump communicated his objection to funding the Ukrainians with deadly weaponry to Republicans in Congress?

Yes, my point exactly. I literally made the point in my last post that the man was quick to speak out against Republican members of Congress, and that if he was against arming the Ukrainians, he would have communicated this objection to Republicans in Congress! So I don't know why you felt the need to tell me to "remember" this!

Who?

Two articles are from 2019 and one is from 2018. What do these have to do with the 2017 funding of $47 million worth of deadly weaponry to Ukraine?

 

Maybe I'm not up to date here but I'm pretty sure the Ukraine patriot system shot down the best Russia has to offer...

 

The link does not give the specifics of exactly how we know the technical specifications of the new North Korean missile.
So that is one thing that is worth looking into, before we come to any judgements.

It's possible Russia could have handed over their technical expertise, but that just would not seem to make the most sense. Russia would not really have very good reason for doing that. And if they did do that, they would probably want the U.S. to know. They would have only done that to try to send a signal and antagonize the U.S., so they would not be trying to keep this a secret.

So, while I think it is possible, I do not see this making the most sense or fitting with the geopolitical situation.

 

How does that relate to this thread?

 

South Korea has the patriot missiles...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...-buy-more-patriot-missiles-upgrade-launchers/

So go for it. Launch that bird. We will shoot it down.

 

God, Chris. Though this may be a shortcoming of mine, to not be more patient, I will be honest in telling you that I find it trying, to need reply to questions, when I feel the answers should be self-evident, especially when the clarification seems of no real importance. I wouldn't mind as much, if we were speaking, but typing is a chore for me, especially on the small screen of my phone, which is what I use, to participate here.

That said, let's get to the first few of your queries:

Is there any other issue, we are discussing? Yes, the issue of supporting Ukraine against Russian threats, with military aid, including "deadly weaponry."

Obsequious, the way you had described your expectation of how things would have played out, had any Republicans pushed legislation which Trump did not like. That was your basis, for not believing my saying that they had done this (remember?).

NO. It did happen, as I had related it: as it being a priority of members of Congress, and of others, which came to Trump's desk without his really wanting it; but he signed it, anyway, because he realized that, if he didn't-- at least in this one particular case-- his Republican fellows would vote to override his Veto. It did happen, as in there were actually Republicans who felt strongly enough about this, and who had not yet been fully castrated, so that they were willing to advance an idea that had not come to them from Trump, or for which they had not received Trump's prior approval; they were not worrying, "what if Trump tweets his displeasure?"

 

Yeah but you mentioned Ukraine shooting down "the best Russia has to offer..."