President Donald Trump

[onejayhawk]

It is amazing how wide the divide is on the Trump/Putin spontaneous mini-summit. Both sides were declared the clear and obvious winner.

J

[The Feral Slasher]

It is amazing how wide the divide is on the Trump/Putin spontaneous mini-summit. Both sides were declared the clear and obvious winner.

J

both sides ? you only named one

[chancellor]

Again, I don't know why it has to be framed that Russia and Putin can only be an enemy dedicated to our absolute destruction or our ally. Clearly Russia has long been our enemy/rival, that doesn't mean they have any realistic hope at destroying us. I think it is more likely that Putin is interested in Money and Power than any desire to see us destroyed. The desire for money and power will naturally create tension and conflict with America whose foreign policy also is run by elites who are fond of power and money.

And since when did jailing domestic opposition and poor civil rights record mean you can't be an ally of the United States. I guess Saudi Arabia has a strong civil rights record and is supportive of religious tolerance and LGBTQ rights ?

I would be interested in more info on the regimes Russia is supporting that are continually perpetrating violence against the U.S.

I guess to sum it up, yes Putin is a horrible human being. That doesn't mean that he is working to destroy the United States, or that he has any capability to do so without unacceptable consequences. I think there is enough to criticize Putin and Trump for that there is no need to embellish or exaggerate.

You make a number of good points here, especially about human rights equaling a regime that may or may not be our ally. Jimmy Carter tried diplomacy that way with poor results.

However, I'd frame the challenge differently - I'd note that Putin is aggressively pushing a Russian agenda that in most cases is antithetical to US and world goals.

[The Feral Slasher]

You make a number of good points here, especially about human rights equaling a regime that may or may not be our ally. Jimmy Carter tried diplomacy that way with poor results.

However, I'd frame the challenge differently - I'd note that Putin is aggressively pushing a Russian agenda that in most cases is antithetical to US and world goals.

I think your last paragraph actually is consistent with what I wrote, so I don't know that I would argue against it.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Again, I don't know why it has to be framed that Russia and Putin can only be an enemy dedicated to our absolute destruction or our ally. Clearly Russia has long been our enemy/rival, that doesn't mean they have any realistic hope at destroying us. I think it is more likely that Putin is interested in Money and Power than any desire to see us destroyed. The desire for money and power will naturally create tension and conflict with America whose foreign policy also is run by elites who are fond of power and money.

And since when did jailing domestic opposition and poor civil rights record mean you can't be an ally of the United States. I guess Saudi Arabia has a strong civil rights record and is supportive of religious tolerance and LGBTQ rights ?

I would be interested in more info on the regimes Russia is supporting that are continually perpetrating violence against the U.S.

I guess to sum it up, yes Putin is a horrible human being. That doesn't mean that he is working to destroy the United States, or that he has any capability to do so without unacceptable consequences. I think there is enough to criticize Putin and Trump for that there is no need to embellish or exaggerate.

Thanks for the response FS. I guess we see "destroying America" in two different ways.

Of course Putin is in it for Wealth and Power and if he Diminished the Nation's standing in the world, he gets both. If he diminishes our way (quality) of life his influence has grown (and Russia's with it) If he fosters those who are admittedly seeking the "Destruction of America" isn't that kind of self explanatory?

To your question of which regimes...They fostered Iran's Nuclear program, Stood by while N Korea developed theirs (and have openly committed to filling the gaps they suffer from sanctions), they support Assad's regime and though none of THESE regimes have openly practiced violence against us, the threat is there. But you want the "who IS attacking"us with support from Russia--Well there's quite a bit of evidence that Russia and Putin covertly fund ISIS, the Taliban (or whatever the anti US insurgents are calling themselves in Afghanistan these days) and in Russia Anti US propaganda is at an all time high.

I do agree that saying they want to eliminate us or physically destroy us is a btit hyperbolic, but they do want to reduce our influence, or power and impact in the world and have done so over the past year to a greater degree than ever before.

Trump is a business guy so he's in line with Putin's role playing the power hungry businessman and can ignore the other intangibles that are the dangerous parts of this budding Bromance.

I also have never supported OUR support for nations like Saudi Arabia, ever, but when it comes to money, our country isn't above dealing with nations it supposedly should shun.

More later--gotta run.

Again, thanks for responding I'm sure we're not done with this.

[The Feral Slasher]

they support Assad's regime and though none of THESE regimes have openly practiced violence against us, the threat is there. But you want the "who IS attacking"us with support from Russia--Well there's quite a bit of evidence that Russia and Putin covertly fund ISIS, the Taliban (or whatever the anti US insurgents are calling themselves in Afghanistan these days) and in Russia Anti US propaganda is at an all time high.

.

I will respond more later when I have time, but I wanted to respond to this item. Do you (and others on the board) really think that we can claim Assad is threatening the U.S. ? This seems to me to be 180 degrees from the reality of the situation.

I've not seen much info on Russia funding ISIS, I thought they were actually fighting against them in Syria. If you have info on that please share. As far as funding the Taliban...I have a hard time classifying that as attacking us or threatening us, particularly if you look at the history there. Any support there would be more against U.S. occupation than threatening our country, I'm sure others probably disagree.

Anti-US propaganda I really don't see that as a threat to me, nor do I really care about it. It's not like anti-Russian propaganda isn't at an all time high. Overall, what it seems to me is that as is usually the case, anyone who opposes U.S. foreign policy is demonized. I guess the whole reason I responded originally to Lucky's post is that I think it is a bad idea to try to stir up a confrontation with Russia or start a new cold war because of what happened during the election. Whatever the Russians did was much less than what we routinely do to countries all over the world and have done for the last 50 years or more. Certainly some response is called for, I just don't see the point in trying to create a new cold war because Hillary lost the election.

[DMT]

Anti-US propaganda I really don't see that as a threat to me, nor do I really care about it. It's not like anti-Russian propaganda isn't at an all time high. Overall, what it seems to me is that as is usually the case, anyone who opposes U.S. foreign policy is demonized. I guess the whole reason I responded originally to Lucky's post is that I think it is a bad idea to try to stir up a confrontation with Russia or start a new cold war because of what happened during the election. Whatever the Russians did was much less than what we routinely do to countries all over the world and have done for the last 50 years or more. Certainly some response is called for, I just don't see the point in trying to create a new cold war because Hillary lost the election.

Agreed...the problem though is that we now have a sizable percentage of the population that is completely ok with Russian meddling because it worked in their favor, and plenty of politicians who conveniently look the other way. Russian meddling is going to continue when so many are defending or enabling it to happen.

[The Feral Slasher]

Agreed...the problem though is that we now have a sizable percentage of the population that is completely ok with Russian meddling because it worked in their favor, and plenty of politicians who conveniently look the other way. Russian meddling is going to continue when so many are defending or enabling it to happen.

I agree, Russians will continue to meddle to the point they can get away with it and we should work to minimize any influence they might have. I don't necessarily think that creating a new cold war reduces the chances of Russian involvement in our elections, nor do I think it is a something we should encourage.

Edit --Your point about Republicans accepting Russian meddling is also true...it isn't something we should encourage or applaud

[GwynnInTheHall]

I will respond more later when I have time, but I wanted to respond to this item. Do you (and others on the board) really think that we can claim Assad is threatening the U.S. ? This seems to me to be 180 degrees from the reality of the situation.

I've not seen much info on Russia funding ISIS, I thought they were actually fighting against them in Syria. If you have info on that please share. As far as funding the Taliban...I have a hard time classifying that as attacking us or threatening us, particularly if you look at the history there. Any support there would be more against U.S. occupation than threatening our country, I'm sure others probably disagree.

Anti-US propaganda I really don't see that as a threat to me, nor do I really care about it. It's not like anti-Russian propaganda isn't at an all time high. Overall, what it seems to me is that as is usually the case, anyone who opposes U.S. foreign policy is demonized. I guess the whole reason I responded originally to Lucky's post is that I think it is a bad idea to try to stir up a confrontation with Russia or start a new cold war because of what happened during the election. Whatever the Russians did was much less than what we routinely do to countries all over the world and have done for the last 50 years or more. Certainly some response is called for, I just don't see the point in trying to create a new cold war because Hillary lost the election.

I've never suggested we go back to the Cold War era diplomacy and I DO think there are ways we can work to improve relations, though it would take near impossible concessions on Russia's part, but they ARE an Adversary in every sense of the word.

As to your other comments, I see Assad as a threat because he creates a situation that impacts Americans and our interests adversely. You're no doubt aware of the completely confusing support chart of who's doing what in Syria so it's not unusual that you can be fighting a group you actually fund or at one time funded (the US has done it many times in it's past) and in Afghanistan, why wouldn't the Russians fund the same insurgents they fought as long as it costs the US time and effort (not to mention assets and money), we have done the same in the past (the enemy of my enemy.....)

[The Feral Slasher]

As to your other comments, I see Assad as a threat because he creates a situation that impacts Americans and our interests adversely.

I really have a hard time taking this viewpoint seriously at all. We have been actively working to have him removed as the leader of his country, and now we want to claim we are threatened by him. We are such victims.

Edit - I think you do a good job of capturing the essence of our foreign policy -- anyone who doesn't do what we want them to or resists us in any way is viewed as a threat.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I really have a hard time taking this viewpoint seriously at all. We have been actively working to have him removed as the leader of his country, and now we want to claim we are threatened by him. We are such victims.

Edit - I think you do a good job of capturing the essence of our foreign policy -- anyone who doesn't do what we want them to or resists us in any way is viewed as a threat.

How did I ever convey that? To consider someone who actively engage in actions that target the US a threat is vastly different that just saying, we don;t like what you do so therefore you're a threat.

I also believe you're contradicting yourself.

WE are trying to remove Assad BECAUSE he's a threat and the Russians are keeping him in power, thus they are supporting a threat to US.

[DMT]

How is Assad threatening us?

[The Feral Slasher]

How is Assad threatening us?

He's not surrendering when we support rebels who are trying to unseat him.

[GwynnInTheHall]

How is Assad threatening us?

Now I'm sure you're not actually reading my posts, but just continuing to troll me as you've been doing recently.

[DMT]

they support Assad's regime and though none of THESE regimes have openly practiced violence against us, the threat is there..

You're right, now I understand.