Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war
#1
Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#2
Unexpected talks on Syria to take place this weekend, says Moscow
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#3
And here it was the left who used to say, "better Red than dead".
Reply
#4
It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#5
(10-13-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!

I don't remember a nuclear war under Reagan.
Reply
#6
(10-13-2016, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!

I don't remember a nuclear war under Reagan.

Precisely. An appeaser like Neville Trump is much more likely to bring war.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#7
(10-13-2016, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!

I don't remember a nuclear war under Reagan.

Reagan talked tough and built up the military, but his war was the invasion of Grenada.  The Powell Doctrine first manifest at that time.  Don't start a war unless you have to, if  you can win cleanly, if you have domestic and international support, and if you can get out without lasting entanglements.  You can do that against opponents like Grenada. Perhaps all our enemies ought to be tiny Commonwealth islands.

The Bushes went into Afghanistan and Iraq which are very different.
Reply
#8
(10-13-2016, 01:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!

I don't remember a nuclear war under Reagan.

Reagan talked tough and built up the military, but his war was the invasion of Grenada.  The Powell Doctrine first manifest at that time.  Don't start a war unless you have to, if  you can win cleanly, if you have domestic and international support, and if you can get out without lasting entanglements.  You can do that against opponents like Grenada. Perhaps all our enemies ought to be tiny Commonwealth islands.

The Bushes went into Afghanistan and Iraq which are very different.

I had no problem with Ronald Reagan dispatching a Commie regime that had just overthrown a 'pinko' regime in Grenada. America got requests from other countries in the Caribbean basin and acted in accordance with the Rio Treaty. The war to overthrow the Commies in Grenada had domestic and international support, and was easy to win with no bad consequences. 

Ronald Reagan was able to get a deal with the Soviet leadership on nukes because his people understood a legitimate fear of that leadership: that a wayward 'socialist' government might want to become a Great Power with the aid of a nuclear program. We could give the Soviet leadership something that it wanted (none of its shaky allies getting a nuke) while NATO pressured even larger countries with better scientific communities from getting a nuke. "No German nuke" implied that neither the Federal Republic nor the DDR would get one. However reactionary Ronald Reagan could be he at least understood the Other Side and its interests and could make deals.

Donald Trump is capricious and callow enough to expect the rest of Humanity to fall in line with the demands of His Magnificence just because he is a "winner". In that he is no Ronald Reagan. He is not even another George W. Bush, who simply miscalculated the complex aftermath of an American invasion of Iraq and failed to accept the intelligence of the CIA as accurate.

It is ironic that the more that I defend the Obama foreign policy that Hillary Clinton will maintain (except probably for pushing John Kerry out to pasture), the more I end up defending Ronald Reagan. Donald Trump is just beyond exuse and even understanding on foreign policy.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#9
(10-13-2016, 01:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!

I don't remember a nuclear war under Reagan.

Reagan talked tough and built up the military, but his war was the invasion of Grenada.  The Powell Doctrine first manifest at that time.  Don't start a war unless you have to, if  you can win cleanly, if you have domestic and international support, and if you can get out without lasting entanglements.  You can do that against opponents like Grenada. Perhaps all our enemies ought to be tiny Commonwealth islands.

The Bushes went into Afghanistan and Iraq which are very different.

Exactly.  And Obama and Cliinton follow the Bush policy, not the Reagan policy, but without the understanding and care about fundamental Russian interests that the Bush administration had. That's why a Clinton administration is a perfect recipe for inadvertent escalation into a nuclear war with Russia. All it takes is for the Brits to fail to block a stupid decision such as that by Democratic favorite Wesley Clark at Pristina.
Reply
#10
(10-14-2016, 08:12 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 01:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!

I don't remember a nuclear war under Reagan.

Reagan talked tough and built up the military, but his war was the invasion of Grenada.  The Powell Doctrine first manifest at that time.  Don't start a war unless you have to, if  you can win cleanly, if you have domestic and international support, and if you can get out without lasting entanglements.  You can do that against opponents like Grenada. Perhaps all our enemies ought to be tiny Commonwealth islands.

The Bushes went into Afghanistan and Iraq which are very different.

Exactly.  And Obama and Cliinton follow the Bush policy, not the Reagan policy, but without the understanding and care about fundamental Russian interests that the Bush administration had.  That's why a Clinton administration is a perfect recipe for inadvertent escalation into a nuclear war with Russia.  All it takes is for the Brits to fail to block a stupid decision such as that by Democratic favorite Wesley Clark at Pristina.

I'm not reading it that way.  President Obama and SecState Clinton pulled most troops out of the Middle East as the conditions set by the Powell Doctrine weren't being met.  We had a quagmire.  Occupying land when there are a lot of folks that don't want to be occupied is a thankless task that leaves nobody happy.  Both Obama and Hillary are reluctant to commit regular troops into Syria for this reason, while Trump is far more enthusiastic about sending in the army.

There are many factions fighting in and around Syria.  The US and other western countries want to subdue ISIS as they are far more apt to export terror than anyone else.  Thus, the western countries have an agenda.  The many local groups have many entirely different agendas, mostly involving their own religious, tribal or political organizations acquiring more power.  While ISIS is our enemy, they are not the most obnoxious group in the region.  That would be Assad's establishment Syrian government.  Obama and Hillary can't or won't commit ground troops (other than special forces who don't fill an 'occupy territory' role) due to practical considerations related to the Powell Doctrine, and they are having a really tough time convincing local factions to act against their own interests.

Note a lot more people are dying or being displaced in the Middle East than are dying in the west to ISIS terror.  The locals have that much more reason to focus on solving their own problems than keeping westerners happy.
Reply
#11
(10-14-2016, 09:23 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(10-14-2016, 08:12 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 01:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!

I don't remember a nuclear war under Reagan.

Reagan talked tough and built up the military, but his war was the invasion of Grenada.  The Powell Doctrine first manifest at that time.  Don't start a war unless you have to, if  you can win cleanly, if you have domestic and international support, and if you can get out without lasting entanglements.  You can do that against opponents like Grenada. Perhaps all our enemies ought to be tiny Commonwealth islands.

The Bushes went into Afghanistan and Iraq which are very different.

Exactly.  And Obama and Cliinton follow the Bush policy, not the Reagan policy, but without the understanding and care about fundamental Russian interests that the Bush administration had.  That's why a Clinton administration is a perfect recipe for inadvertent escalation into a nuclear war with Russia.  All it takes is for the Brits to fail to block a stupid decision such as that by Democratic favorite Wesley Clark at Pristina.

I'm not reading it that way.  President Obama and SecState Clinton pulled most troops out of the Middle East as the conditions set by the Powell Doctrine weren't being met.  We had a quagmire.  Occupying land when there are a lot of folks that don't want to be occupied is a thankless task that leaves nobody happy.  Both Obama and Hillary are reluctant to commit regular troops into Syria for this reason, while Trump is far more enthusiastic about sending in the army.

The Powell doctrine is about when to fight, not just about when to commit troops.  The current U.S. participation in Syria and Iraq still violates the Powell doctrine, as did the counterproductive action in Libya which was initiated, and not just continued, by Obama and Clinton.

In fact, air power only interventions are more likely to result in escalation than ground troop deployment, if only because Russia is very careful to avoid direct conflict with U.S. forces.  Russia's not likely to have any targets in range of our rifles, but they definitely have targets that we could mistakenly - or purposely - bomb in situations like Syria.

Quote:There are many factions fighting in and around Syria.  The US and other western countries want to subdue ISIS as they are far more apt to export terror than anyone else.  Thus, the western countries have an agenda.  The many local groups have many entirely different agendas, mostly involving their own religious, tribal or political organizations acquiring more power.  While ISIS is our enemy, they are not the most obnoxious group in the region.  That would be Assad's establishment Syrian government.  Obama and Hillary can't or won't commit ground troops (other than special forces who don't fill an 'occupy territory' role) due to practical considerations related to the Powell Doctrine, and they are having a really tough time convincing local factions to act against their own interests.

Note a lot more people are dying or being displaced in the Middle East than are dying in the west to ISIS terror.  The locals have that much more reason to focus on solving their own problems than keeping westerners happy.

All true but how is that relevant to potential escalation with Russia?
Reply
#12
(10-12-2016, 04:25 PM)taramarie Wrote: Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war

It's Zhirinovsky.  I mean really.  He's like Glenn Beck and his blackboard.
Reply
#13
(10-14-2016, 08:12 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Exactly.  And Obama and Cliinton follow the Bush policy, not the Reagan policy, but without the understanding and care about fundamental Russian interests that the Bush administration had. That's why a Clinton administration is a perfect recipe for inadvertent escalation into a nuclear war with Russia. All it takes is for the Brits to fail to block a stupid decision such as that by Democratic favorite Wesley Clark at Pristina.

I want a president who looks after American interests, not Russian interests.

Trump is dangerous; unlike a former great Secretary of State who is skilled at diplomacy. Trump might be the next Neville Chamberlain. Estonia is too far away for us to be concerned about, he will say. If they don't pay up, we won't defend them; he'll say. That's carte blanche for Putin to march in. We will have to defend them anyway; we all know how quickly Trump changes his mind; even in mid-sentence. WWIII begins.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#14
(10-14-2016, 12:32 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(10-12-2016, 04:25 PM)taramarie Wrote: Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war

It's Zhirinovsky.  I mean really.  He's like Glenn Beck and his blackboard.

I am not going by what he has said though. It is a worry given he is the leader of a political party in Russia (if we are comparing to Glenn who is not a leader of a political party). The links I provided also stated they are preparing for a war. The actions are what really worry me. I also wonder what Putin thinks. Given he is all buddy buddy with Trump and vise versa I would say he would be more than likely to agree. But that is something I will just wait and see about.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#15
(10-14-2016, 02:54 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(10-14-2016, 08:12 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 01:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:48 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-13-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's another good reason to elect Hillary Clinton. Keep the Reagan foreign policy alive!

I don't remember a nuclear war under Reagan.

Reagan talked tough and built up the military, but his war was the invasion of Grenada.  The Powell Doctrine first manifest at that time.  Don't start a war unless you have to, if  you can win cleanly, if you have domestic and international support, and if you can get out without lasting entanglements.  You can do that against opponents like Grenada. Perhaps all our enemies ought to be tiny Commonwealth islands.

The Bushes went into Afghanistan and Iraq which are very different.

Exactly.  And Obama and Cliinton follow the Bush policy, not the Reagan policy, but without the understanding and care about fundamental Russian interests that the Bush administration had.  That's why a Clinton administration is a perfect recipe for inadvertent escalation into a nuclear war with Russia.  All it takes is for the Brits to fail to block a stupid decision such as that by Democratic favorite Wesley Clark at Pristina.

Gotcha ... so you are one of those "we screwed the Serbs and now the Pan-Slavic Russians are justified in making us pay" folks. Tell me, did you get into this train of thought from listening to The Savage Nation?

"Justified" has nothing to do with it.  "Avoiding getting all our cities and most of our population incinerated" has everything to do with it.
Reply
#16
Hilarious. Warren Dew actually believes that we ought to cower and cater to Putin.
Reply
#17
(10-15-2016, 12:38 AM)Einzige Wrote: Hilarious. Warren Dew actually believes that we ought to cower and cater to Putin.

Better would be actually understanding the Russian view of geopolitics and shaping our own strategy to match.  For example, placing U.S. ABM radar in Poland would be an excellent way to guarantee Poland's freedom, since the Russians would not want to invade a country with a physical U.S. presence.  A similar case was Russia's invasion of Georgia, which stopped in its tracks the moment U.S. transport  planes landed, even though they were delivering Georgian troops back from Iraq.  The latter case may not have been intentional, but the kind of thing that could be done intentionally.

The Obama/Clinton emphasis on Air Force based intervention is the  worst possible way to deal with Russia.

I'm not saying Trump will be perfect, but he's less likely to get us all killed.
Reply
#18
(10-15-2016, 02:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-15-2016, 12:38 AM)Einzige Wrote: Hilarious. Warren Dew actually believes that we ought to cower and cater to Putin.

Better would be actually understanding the Russian view of geopolitics and shaping our own strategy to match.  For example, placing U.S. ABM radar in Poland would be an excellent way to guarantee Poland's freedom, since the Russians would not want to invade a country with a physical U.S. presence.  A similar case was Russia's invasion of Georgia, which stopped in its tracks the moment U.S. transport  planes landed, even though they were delivering Georgian troops back from Iraq.  The latter case may not have been intentional, but the kind of thing that could be done intentionally.

I don't think ABM would deter a physical invasion, but otherwise you may have a point. Deterence can work.

Quote:The Obama/Clinton emphasis on Air Force based intervention is the  worst possible way to deal with Russia.

Air power rarely works. But Obama and Clinton are not relying on it solely in Iraq now, and not at all in Syria where Russia is invading and using air power.

Quote:I'm not saying Trump will be perfect, but he's less likely to get us all killed.

He's far more likely to get us all killed, as should be obvious. Not only with his coddling to Putin that may encourage him to violate NATO, which Trump says we might not support if it's invaded, but his talent for reacting to every perceived slight in anger, and his desire to see more nations get nucs. An effective diplomat as president is much safer, and one who will not let Putin get away with incursions. Right now we have no leverage to bring peace to Syria. Hillary wanted to give the free Syrian rebels that leverage, and Obama has not given anything except too little too late. With her in command, we may get the leverage we need to negotiate with Assad's allies.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#19
(10-15-2016, 02:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm not saying Trump will be perfect, but he's less likely to get us all killed.

I think this is a misread of Trump.  I agree with Trump's thinking.  Putin is a rational actor, he seeks to restore Russian influence in its traditional sphere of interest.  The Ukraine is the site of the Kievan state, which Russians see as the precursor to their civilization.  It would be very hard to see that become part of another empire (NATO).  Before they see that they would risk much.  The Ukraine means nothing to the West and so Putin's logic dictates that Russia should get want they want there.  On the other hand, Poland and the Baltic states were part of Latin Christendom, and so Putin can expect stiffer resistance from the West here. Like me, Trump probably sees no particular reason for a beef with Russia and so our differences should be amenable to negotiation, a practice Trump feels is his métier.

The problem is Trump appears to be a buffoon, and could well be.  Surely Putin thinks of him as such (to which I concur).  I suspect Putin believes he can negotiate a free hand in Ukraine in exchange for Russian assistance with dealing with ISIS (the achievement of which would be a coup for Trump).  Emboldened by Trumps rhetoric on NATO, he might try to change the facts on the ground in the Baltic republics, causing a situation to which neither the European members nor Trump want to respond.  Inevitably after this foreign experts will write analyses of how Putin got America to give away the store, which will anger Trump because it will make him appear to be a loser (at least in his own mind).  This could provide a ultimatum-type response from Trump to which Putin will have no recourse other than war. 

Were Trump a sober, rational actor, for which I see no evidence, his policy ideas would be sound, IMO.  But he is not and so his election would be very dangerous IMO.
Reply
#20
A nuclear war, Warren Dew, would have the beneficial side-effect of removing your generation from the world stage. I can survive it; the generation of the hoverround cannot.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why rural voters don’t vote Democratic anymore Dan '82 94 31,535 03-12-2020, 04:36 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Trump seeks to pardon SEAL and others accused of war crimes gal39 17 999 01-01-2020, 04:49 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Rand Paul accuses McConnell and other senators of forming a ‘war caucus’ TAB 1 407 12-29-2019, 03:34 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Report: US Government Chronically Lied About Trillion Dollar War In Afghanistan mayor2 12 421 12-20-2019, 12:58 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Ohio lawmakers vote to give themselves a pay raise Unicorn 18 1,134 12-10-2019, 06:09 AM
Last Post: nvfd
  Gabbard Denounces AG Sessions’ Escalation of Failed War on Drugs nebraska 0 451 01-23-2018, 02:20 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Trump declares war on the Constitution nebraska 0 441 01-22-2018, 01:51 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Americans Remain Eligible for Targeted Killing, White House Clarifies nebraska 0 598 01-17-2018, 12:37 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Congress desperately dodges its duty on war and peace nebraska 0 519 01-15-2018, 08:54 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Washington’s War Against The People nebraska 0 537 01-15-2018, 08:08 AM
Last Post: nebraska

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)