Why would you tell your enemy your next move?

"Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!”

Why would you tell your enemy your next move? Unless Russia is America's ally, then that's okay. Is Trump bluffing or is he for real?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520

 

Depends.

In a bombing situation, where you don't want to hit Russian troops for example, yes it makes perfect sense to broadcast your intent.

Which has been done repeatedly, more particularly in recent military history.

 

With all the intelligence leaks our nation has had the last 20 years, I'm guessing everyone knows our next moves. If we had stricter penalties (that were actually enforced) it'd be different.

Trump is making Bush-like threats. Bush had the sack to carry them out. Trump may be showing aces with a J,10 suited but who knows

 

Shock and awe (you have 48 hours to vacate) comes to mind

 

Many such examples exist. In WWII leaflets were often dropped warning inhabitants of upcoming bombing.

 

Because you ain't going to do it. That's the only possible explanation.

Trump must have been coerced on the right track by anyone serious in the startegy staff, so he espresses his frustration with empty threats. If the US was about to strike, Trump wouldn't have telegraphed it.

 

These were clear ultimatums, not just some steam off Twitter.

There's no ultimatum in Trump's tweets. I can believe his tenders let him tweet that.

 

Very true. Speaking of that, if you play Call of Duty WWII, the "London Docks" level shows some of those if you look closely

 

Because if he said 'Hey Russia, lets be friends and work together' it would be 'evidence of collusion'.

 

Which is why I made the poker reference. The last thing we need as a cold war with Russia. That's what Hillary and the left wanted. We need to settle **** with Russia.

"Yea but they hacked our elections"... Yes left wing, the right warned you russia was a threat and you didn't listen. Obama laughed.

We've hacked, assassinated, armed...etc nations that changed their outcomes. NOW the left wing is outraged?

Bullshit. The left is not outraged at all about Russia. They are outraged about Hillary losing.

 

Bullshit. You know who wants a new Cold War? Russia, especially Putin and friends. Old Soviets seeking to restore the lost superpower and challenge western hegemony.

 

Given that it's a tweet, we must assume that it is primarily for show, Trumpian theatrics. Russia's threats are likewise theatrical, though they also give us pause to think. Our officials are certainly thinking twice before firing those "nice and new and 'smart'" missles. Welcome to brinkmanship in the Internet Age.

 

Perhaps - but unlikely. What we know for a fact is that the international financiers that run this nation need war to keep money flowing into their coffers.

 

The living room variety, caviar-sniffing left was indeed upset at HRC's loss, but there was no real leftist of the red beret & kalashnikov or worker kind who ever was; HRC's agenda was at Trump's right, expecially regarding the ME and Russia. More than the "left" or the "right", populism won last US Presidential elections... and surrendered when Bannon was thrown out of the WH.

HRC, like McCain, do not mind being the face of the Swamp; Experienced, they know the limits of ideals in their line of business.

As for Russia interfering in your elections, I guess I'd worry about the living room elephant rather than the suspected mouse in the walls.

 

Who exactly? People like this - wealthy investors and shareholders - benefit from all kinds of investments. If it weren't war, they'd be invested in something else. They're opportunists, and they can't tell elected officials what to do. They have no direct voice in government, no mind control powers.

 

Who? The major players that own the defense contractors, banks, healthcare oligopoly, insurance. Energy, the MSM and so on.

The idea that these players are not part of, and do not influence the Establishment political and bureaucratic elite is woefully absurd.

Its a pay to play system. When you play - you get paid. It is not for nothing that Hillary gets 250K a pop for a 15 min speech at a wall street banker luncheon.
Did you think it was for her good looks and charming personality ? This is silly. Its for a job well done. When you play - you get paid - and everyone knows it throughout the bureaucratic and political elite.

It is no secret that US foreign policy is conducted on the basis of economic considerations and not laughable platitudes (spreading democracy, freedom and so on)

 

Oh, for sure it's economic considerations. Money makes the world go 'round. Geopolitics are based directly on economic interests, whether national, corporate or personal. But how this translates into our deciding to fire missiles at Syrian government installations and potentially starting a major war is not that clear-cut. In the end, the same puppet masters you imagine don't need that to have their wealth and would be placing themselves and everyone they know and love at great risk, at least in the latter case. At the same time, again, they have no direct control over government policy. I don't care what Hillary Clinton gets to do a speech on Wall Street; it is absurd to suggest that anyone in politics is so corrupt and stupid as to start military conflicts for petty personal gain. At the very least, try finding proper, specific evidence of it before you make such accusations. Right now you're being vague and expecting me to believe in something without a shred of detail or evidence, just an imagined connection between Clinton getting a lot of money to deliver a speech and warmongering.

She gets that money because she draws a big, high-paying crowd. It's simple economics and doesn't require anything so nefarious to understand. She's practically a celebrity at this point, and celebrities all make big money for putting in appearances at various venues.

 

Well, the US is going to have to warn Russians of incoming strike no matter what. The targets of the strikes are hardware, not live people. The retaliation is about causing costly hardware losses. Humans aren’t really targets.
That’s why it makes sense to warn. If you strike secretly you end up killing a bunch of innocent civilians.

 

Hillary was just one simple example. The Bureaucratic elite (sometimes referred to as "deep state") go on to be lobbyists or get some cushy seat on some board of directors - if you have "Played nice" - forwarded the policies of the Establishment.

Chances are you do not get elected if you are not already an establishment pawn (agree with the agenda of the various money players).

Your understanding of US foreign policy - and history in general is lacking.

You are acting like it is some big secret that moneyed influence is not a huge part of our system.

 

Conspiracy theory. Enough.

 

Denial and demonization, when coming across information that conflicts with nationalistic belief, is common among those who are addicted to propaganda.

 

Worst boots on the ground call of duty in history though.

 

Really? Cite for me Hillary's Russia policy.

Yes though, I do agree Putin wants a cold war

 

Also, to your comment "bullshit"...tell us what Obama had the US doing in Libya and Syria.

Of course you won't without deflecting

 

Why, you think I'm out to defend 0bama and Hillary where no defense is warranted? Stop making such silly assumptions. I don't live in your black and white (red and blue) world.

0bama evidently had us training and arming anti-government groups in Syria and similarly backing a popular uprising against Gaddafi in Libya. What would you change or add to that?