CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:46 pm
And they just can't stop...
Yup, bootlickers for the authoritarians..."deal with it".
Did Bolton set his mustache on fire when he briefed Trump on this ?
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:16 pm
by MDlaxfan76
CU77 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:13 pm
Here is someone who actually deserves the title of "old salt":
But he's "not old enough to have endured Cold War 1."
Did we lose the Cold War with the Soviets?
well, it did take over 20 years before the KGB agent had a shot at defeating the US...almost 30 to get us to turn tail out of Germany, cede the ME...
and this from the guy who so badly wants a Cold War with China!
CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:39 pm
Seems like some people will blame/attack the press, PDB, Obama, Binden, veterans, other citizens...
Everyone but o d and putin.
little r before country
Rhetorical attacks by keyboard warriors, waving the bloody shirt, are meaningless virtue signaling.
Trump & Putin are the elected leaders of their nations. Deal with it & stop whining.
Your view of the world is truly twisted if you consider Putin a legitimately elected leader.
Putin kills or imprisons his political opponents. Kills dissidents overseas. Has a firm grip on all major news media. And to top it all off, he and his cronies embezzle a massive share of Russia’s treasury.
You call Putin an elected leader?
What is wrong with you?
DocBarrister
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:31 pm
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:16 pm
well, it did take over 20 years before the KGB agent had a shot at defeating the US...almost 30 to get us to turn tail out of Germany, cede the ME...
and this from the guy who so badly wants a Cold War with China!
I want a Cold War with neither. I want us to stop letting China steal our IP so they can clone our latest weapons, block them from spying on us via G5, & to stop draining our industrial base & destroying our middle class to build their's.
Do you seriously consider Russia a greater threat than Communist China ? Really ?
...turn tail out of Germany ? .. ...leaving only 25,000 troops to defend the Rhine.
...cede the ME ? We just smoked the head of the IRGC & sent F-15's & Patriots to SA.
We still have forces in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar & SA.
UAE, Egypt, France, Russia VS Qatar, Italy, Turkey -- are battling for control of Libya.
Which side should we jump in on ? Germany's threatening to lead an EU intervention to impose a cease fire. Let them !
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:57 pm
by tech37
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:31 pm
...cede the ME ? We just smoked the head of the IRGC & sent F-15's & Patriots to SA.
No wonder there's a warrant out for Trump's arrest
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:16 pm
well, it did take over 20 years before the KGB agent had a shot at defeating the US...almost 30 to get us to turn tail out of Germany, cede the ME...
and this from the guy who so badly wants a Cold War with China!
I want a Cold War with neither. I want us to stop letting China steal our IP so they can clone our latest weapons, block them from spying on us via G5, & to stop draining our industrial base & destroying our middle class to build their's.
Do you seriously consider Russia a greater threat than Communist China ? Really ?
...turn tail out of Germany ? .. ...leaving only 25,000 troops to defend the Rhine.
...cede the ME ? We just smoked the head of the IRGC & sent F-15's & Patriots to SA.
We still have forces in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar & SA.
UAE, Egypt, France, Russia VS Qatar, Italy, Turkey -- are battling for control of Libya.
Which side should we jump in on ? Germany's threatening to lead an EU intervention to impose a cease fire. Let them !
So, you want a hot war with China?
Seriously, you think playing kissy faced with Xi while at the same time blustering around about all our lost jobs and that tariffs are taxes on the Chinese is actually a strategy that will work???
Do you know what 9-9-6 means?
Americans think WE have a work ethic, working 9-5, 5 days a week...
And that we can have rotting infrastructure because god forbid we actually have the federal government pay for new stuff, gotta have those tax breaks after all.
Yup, give Trump 4 more years and he'll really straighten things out...
Nope, we'll be effectively out of Europe and out of the ME, Africa, etc and Russia and China will be happy as clams. Vlad especially, because you are quite correct that he's nowhere near got the horsepower of China yet has played Trump like a fiddle. And Xi knows that Trump is dupe.
China's the real deal, get over it. They're here to stay.
The question is whether we can make them partners in making the world a better, safer, more prosperous place... or...we're going to war. Pretty sure the latter is existential for the world.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:50 pm
by Farfromgeneva
Weren’t you a junior banker at Alex.Brown back in the day? I’m sure 9,9,6 seemed quaint to you if so when you were producing pitch books and managing analysts in your mid late 20s. Granted there’s a fat meal per diem and car service if working after 9 plus the cool blackberry that tethers you to your boss 24/7 but I don’t know many successful people in this country that work 9-5 and fully take weekends off. Worked for this one French bank Ixis in the lipstick bldg where they had lunch delivered not so much as a perk but to keep us in our seats all day (still loved saving the money as I’m cheap).
Do people consider 9-5, 5 days a week high work ethic? I’ve got a cousin thats pushing 60 in York, PA, mullet, discharged from military for side hustle activities when he was stationed in SoCal but still very pro military (even set up a charity for displaced veterans with modest funding of his own and some pass the hat efforts) who gets up at 4am and works from 5am (maybe 5:30 in the dark cold winter months) until 6-7 as a foreman at a metal fabrication business. Does mostly take weekends off, not always, but doesn’t consider his days hardcore. Never complains even though the company has gone through three hands (probably $15-$30mm in revenue type business, low margin, commodity driven so volatile business) but do people really think 9-5 with a lunch break is work ethic? I never did but then again I’ve felt my whole adult life that I have to earn my keep every day, whether working for Credit Suisse back in the day or for myself now, and justify my paycheck happy to have the opportunities I have so maybe I’m just weird.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:16 pm
well, it did take over 20 years before the KGB agent had a shot at defeating the US...almost 30 to get us to turn tail out of Germany, cede the ME...
and this from the guy who so badly wants a Cold War with China!
I want a Cold War with neither. I want us to stop letting China steal our IP so they can clone our latest weapons, block them from spying on us via G5, & to stop draining our industrial base & destroying our middle class to build their's.
Do you seriously consider Russia a greater threat than Communist China ? Really ?
...turn tail out of Germany ? .. ...leaving only 25,000 troops to defend the Rhine.
...cede the ME ? We just smoked the head of the IRGC & sent F-15's & Patriots to SA.
We still have forces in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar & SA.
UAE, Egypt, France, Russia VS Qatar, Italy, Turkey -- are battling for control of Libya.
Which side should we jump in on ? Germany's threatening to lead an EU intervention to impose a cease fire. Let them !
So, you want a hot war with China?
Seriously, you think playing kissy faced with Xi while at the same time blustering around about all our lost jobs and that tariffs are taxes on the Chinese is actually a strategy that will work???
Do you know what 9-9-6 means?
Americans think WE have a work ethic, working 9-5, 5 days a week...
And that we can have rotting infrastructure because god forbid we actually have the federal government pay for new stuff, gotta have those tax breaks after all.
Yup, give Trump 4 more years and he'll really straighten things out...
Nope, we'll be effectively out of Europe and out of the ME, Africa, etc and Russia and China will be happy as clams. Vlad especially, because you are quite correct that he's nowhere near got the horsepower of China yet has played Trump like a fiddle. And Xi knows that Trump is dupe.
China's the real deal, get over it. They're here to stay.
The question is whether we can make them partners in making the world a better, safer, more prosperous place... or...we're going to war. Pretty sure the latter is existential for the world.
Right. A hot war is the only alternative. We'll be effectively out of Europe when wealthy Germany contributes more combat power to NATO than we do.
We're merely sustaining our presence & combat capability in the Indio-Pacific & ME. We're forcing our allies to do more. Don't holler until you're hurt.
China's indeed the real deal. Their goal is to turn the S China Sea into their lake & they're building island toll booths to enforce it.
Are you willing to ignore what they're doing in Hong Kong ? What's in store for Taiwan if we do ?
Sure we can make them the senior partner in making the world a better, safer, more prosperous place. Just keep selling out to them.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:22 pm
by a fan
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:31 pm
Do you seriously consider Russia a greater threat than Communist China ?
Agree completely, as you know. Maintain sanctions on Russia for election tampering...and then ignore them until they're ready to sit at the big boy table.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:31 pm
..cede the ME ? We just smoked the head of the IRGC & sent F-15's & Patriots to SA.
We still have forces in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar & SA.
UAE, Egypt, France, Russia VS Qatar, Italy, Turkey -- are battling for control of Libya.
Which side should we jump in on ? Germany's threatening to lead an EU intervention to impose a cease fire. Let them !
Been saying this for years now. If Russia...or anyone else.... wants to take their piddly GDP, and blow it on "trying to keep the Middle East stable"?? Where do we sign for that level of long term stupidity?
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:31 pm
I want us to stop letting China steal our IP so they can clone our latest weapons, block them from spying on us via G5, & to stop draining our industrial base & destroying our middle class to build their's.
Trump has made things worse on these fronts, not better.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:31 pm
Do you seriously consider Russia a greater threat than Communist China ?
Agree completely, as you know. Maintain sanctions on Russia for election tampering...and then ignore them until they're ready to sit at the big boy table.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:31 pm
..cede the ME ? We just smoked the head of the IRGC & sent F-15's & Patriots to SA.
We still have forces in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar & SA.
UAE, Egypt, France, Russia VS Qatar, Italy, Turkey -- are battling for control of Libya.
Which side should we jump in on ? Germany's threatening to lead an EU intervention to impose a cease fire. Let them !
Been saying this for years now. If Russia...or anyone else.... wants to take their piddly GDP, and blow it on "trying to keep the Middle East stable"?? Where do we sign for that level of long term stupidity?
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:31 pm
I want us to stop letting China steal our IP so they can clone our latest weapons, block them from spying on us via G5, & to stop draining our industrial base & destroying our middle class to build their's.
Trump has made things worse on these fronts, not better.
China isn’t draining our industrial base. Your gripe should be with corporate America’s focus on maximizing shareholder value. What do you care about Chinese factories? Isn’t your retirement plan doing well? Thank the Chinese. WE SENT JOBS THERE...THEY DIDN’T STEAL THE JOBS. Voice your concerns at your annual shareholder meetings.
It’s not yet clear if or when President Donald Trump heard or read the intelligence report that Russia was paying bounties to Taliban militias for killing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. But whichever version of the story is true, he and his senior advisers come off looking very bad—immoral, vaguely traitorous, astoundingly incompetent, or all three.
The most hideous version of the story is that Trump heard the report—it is well established that the finding was included in the president’s daily intelligence briefing sometime in February—and, apparently, didn’t care.
A somewhat less heinous, but still appalling, variation is that Trump asked Russian President Vladimir Putin if the report was true, Putin denied it, and Trump took Putin’s word over that of his own spy services. (The two did talk on the phone at least five times in the weeks after the intelligence report.) This wouldn’t be unprecedented. Trump believed Putin when he denied interfering in the 2016 presidential election—and that meant believing the accused over the unanimous verdict of the entire U.S. intelligence community. Since there was reportedly at least one dissenting view of the intel about Russian bounty, Trump may have been even more likely to dismiss the finding.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that Trump hadn’t been briefed because there was “no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations.” This is nonsense. Few intelligence findings are 100 percent sure things; many include dissenting footnotes; some inspire lengthy minority reports. But if the subject affects national security in some big or urgent way (and Russia plotting to pay the Taliban to kill U.S. troops would meet that criterion), the president would be notified.
There is another possibility, which would reflect the dysfunctional chaos reported in several accounts and memoirs of the Trump White House. U.S. intelligence chiefs have learned that it does them no good—it only wrecks their influence, which they might need in a real crisis—to tell Trump news he doesn’t want to hear. In January, they wriggled out of their annual briefing to Congress on worldwide threats so they wouldn’t have to appear on TV disagreeing with Trump. Their reluctance made sense. At the previous year’s hearing, the chiefs testified that Iran was abiding by the nuclear deal, that North Korea would never give up its nuclear weapons, that ISIS continued to stoke violence in Iraq and Syria, and that Russian hackers still posed a threat to America’s elections—as a result of which Dan Coats, the national intelligence director at the time, was fired.
Since then, Trump’s national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, has often opened interagency meetings by passing around printouts of Trump’s latest tweets on the subjects under discussion. The message is clear: The group’s purpose is not to offer professional advice to the president but rather to justify and implement Trump’s prejudices.
The New York Times, which first reported this story, noted that the intelligence about Russian bounty payments was mentioned in the written version of the president’s daily briefing. A former senior CIA official and a former senior White House official affirmed to me that intelligence chiefs would have discussed an issue of this magnitude with the national security adviser during one of their weekly meetings—and that, afterward, if not before, it would have been included in the president’s briefing.
Per a recently retired CIA counter-terrorism boss for SW Asia, on PBS Newshour --
-- US IC has been tracking Russian military support & financial transfers to the Taliban as far back as 2018.
-- gathering humint from detainees & intercepting wire transfer data.
-- PDB was Feb 27. Agreement with the Taliban was signed Feb 29.
-- He said he didn't condone leaks, but then he rationalized them.
Based on the nature & timing of the leaks, it's obvious that leakers within the IC are pulling out all stops to scuttle our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Rebranding Russian financial support as bounties sensationalizes what's been going on for years, in Afghanistan & elsewhere, where the US & Russia fight via proxies. Cold War stuff.
Anything to keep us from pulling out of Afghanistan, no matter what it takes. ...Syria & Germany too.
SecDef Esper released -- "the DoD has no corroborating evidence at this time to validate the recent allegations regarding malign activty by Russian personnel against US forces in Afghanistan."
On MSNBC 11th Hr -- " NBC news has not confirmed any link between specific attacks & any alleged offers."
Re: The Politics of National Security
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:31 am
by calourie
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:54 am
Per a recently retired CIA counter-terrorism boss for SW Asia, on PBS Newshour --
-- US IC has been tracking Russian military support & financial transfers to the Taliban as far back as 2018.
-- gathering humint from detainees & intercepting wire transfer data.
-- PDB was Feb 27. Agreement with the Taliban was signed Feb 29.
-- He said he didn't condone leaks, but then he rationalized them.
Based on the nature & timing of the leaks, it's obvious that leakers within the IC are pulling out all stops to scuttle our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Rebranding Russian financial support as bounties sensationalizes what's been going on for years, in Afghanistan & elsewhere, where the US & Russia fight via proxies. Cold War stuff.
Anything to keep us from pulling out of Afghanistan, no matter what it takes. ...Syria & Germany too.
Which means what? We're supposed to be fine with Russia no matter what they do and how they behave? Getting out of Afghanistan is one thing, approving of Russia's behavior towards us and our interests both domestically and abroad is another. I can see into the soul of Putin form what I see of him on TV and he seems like a pretty straight up guy, and for the matter so does Kim Jong Un, and Recep Ergodan, ( and maybe even Xi Jinping if only he'd let us win the trade war we started and stopped infesting us with global pandemics), especially compared to the limp rag, democratically elected leaders of the countries we used to think of as our allies. Can't we all just get along?
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:54 am
Per a recently retired CIA counter-terrorism boss for SW Asia, on PBS Newshour --
-- US IC has been tracking Russian military support & financial transfers to the Taliban as far back as 2018.
-- gathering humint from detainees & intercepting wire transfer data.
-- PDB was Feb 27. Agreement with the Taliban was signed Feb 29.
-- He said he didn't condone leaks, but then he rationalized them.
Based on the nature & timing of the leaks, it's obvious that leakers within the IC are pulling out all stops to scuttle our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Rebranding Russian financial support as bounties sensationalizes what's been going on for years, in Afghanistan & elsewhere, where the US & Russia fight via proxies. Cold War stuff.
Anything to keep us from pulling out of Afghanistan, no matter what it takes. ...Syria & Germany too.
Which means what? We're supposed to be fine with Russia no matter what they do and how they behave? Getting out of Afghanistan is one thing, approving of Russia's behavior towards us and our interests both domestically and abroad is another. I can see into the soul of Putin form what I see of him on TV and he seems like a pretty straight up guy, and for the matter so does Ki Jong Un, and Recep Ergodan, especially compared to the limp rag leaders of the countries we used to think of as our allies. Can't we all just get along?
Nobody's "approving" or saying "it's fine". We don't go off half cocked based on half baked intel.
We've been supporting proxies who've been killing Russians, they've supported proxies who kill us.
That's different than claiming there are bounties to incentivize specific attacks on US forces.
The intel does not confirm that & attacks have stopped since the peace deal.
I don't recall a lot of remorse when we killed over 200 Russians in Syria, in support of our Syrian proxies.
That attack was early 2018, about the same time as first reports of Russian support of the Taliban.
If you want a Cold War with Russia, expect casualties.
While Russia ties down an entire US Army Corps & the USAF in Europe, re-dedicated to defending NATO's E flank.
Is it worth it ? Not to our NATO allies who aren't joining us in the effort.
old salt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:54 am
Per a recently retired CIA counter-terrorism boss for SW Asia, on PBS Newshour --
-- US IC has been tracking Russian military support & financial transfers to the Taliban as far back as 2018.
-- gathering humint from detainees & intercepting wire transfer data.
-- PDB was Feb 27. Agreement with the Taliban was signed Feb 29.
-- He said he didn't condone leaks, but then he rationalized them.
Based on the nature & timing of the leaks, it's obvious that leakers within the IC are pulling out all stops to scuttle our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Rebranding Russian financial support as bounties sensationalizes what's been going on for years, in Afghanistan & elsewhere, where the US & Russia fight via proxies. Cold War stuff.
Anything to keep us from pulling out of Afghanistan, no matter what it takes. ...Syria & Germany too.
Which means what? We're supposed to be fine with Russia no matter what they do and how they behave? Getting out of Afghanistan is one thing, approving of Russia's behavior towards us and our interests both domestically and abroad is another. I can see into the soul of Putin form what I see of him on TV and he seems like a pretty straight up guy, and for the matter so does Ki Jong Un, and Recep Ergodan, especially compared to the limp rag leaders of the countries we used to think of as our allies. Can't we all just get along?
Nobody's "approving" or saying "it's fine". We don't go off half cocked based on half baked intel.
We've been supporting proxies who've been killing Russians, they've supported proxies who kill us.
That's different than claiming there are bounties to incentivize specific attacks on US forces.
The intel does not confirm that & attacks have stopped since the peace deal.
I don't recall a lot of remorse when we killed over 200 Russians in Syria, in support of our Syrian proxies.
That attack was early 2018, about the same time as first reports of Russian support of the Taliban.
If you want a Cold War with Russia, expect casualties.
While Russia ties down an entire US Army Corps & the USAF in Europe, re-dedicated to defending NATO's E flank.
Is it worth it ? Not to our NATO allies who aren't joining us in the effort.
Whoa, you're saying you are equating the Russians paying the Taliban, the Taliban?, with our support of Syrians against Assad, Assad?? And the killing of 200 Russian mercenaries?
Nope, let Vlad have anything he wants.
Would be fascinating to hear a Senate debate on that.
. ...leaving only 25,000 troops to defend the Rhine.