Will Trump attempt to veto sanctions?

[Brad Austin]

It's very plausible Russia hacked the DNC as their security protocols were bush league. It's blatantly obvious Pakistani intelligence had access to their system.

In the party of unsecured basement servers and phish email responding fools, the better question is which attempting country didn't penetrate them?

 

[OUBubba]

Interesting. Roger Stone is a victim of coincidence...

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/misrepresenting-stones-prescience/

"Stone parted ways with the campaign in August 2015 — Trump said he fired him; Stone said he resigned because he felt he could more effectively help Trump’s cause outside the campaign, and that he remained in regular contact with Trump." LOL

 

[OUBubba]

It's very plausible Russia hacked the DNC. It's blatantly obvious Pakistani intelligence had access to their system as well.

In the party of unsecured basement servers and phish email responding fools, the better question is which attempting country didn't penetrate them?

Are you saying that we need Maury Povich to straighten this out? [insert meme here]

 

[Seattle Husker]

I draw the line here. This isn't an appropriate response to the DNC hack, and it shouldn't be done suddenly or lightly. This has major military and national security implications and should only be done (if at all) after very careful and extensive deliberation and after formally withdrawing from the INF Treaty. Not a fan of how it's progressing right now.

I'm not sure why we'd roll back missile treaties unless there was evidence that Russia was already violating the agreement.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Are you saying that we need Maury Povich to straighten this out? [insert meme here]

Some people never learn. You'd think the whole pizzagate conspiracy BS would have been a wakeup call but now they believe that Pakistani Intelligence was also involved. Of course, most of the /t_donald crowd also believes that Podesta's password was "password".

 

[Mr. Deez]

That's a sign to me that the worm is turning on the administration from the GOP controlled Congress.

That might be true, but this isn't the kind of thing you play political games with. If we're going to pull out of the Treaty, it needs to be justified by something very concrete. As Seattle Husker said, Russia may be violating the Treaty. If that's the case, then that's enough reason, but we need to hear specifics on that.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That might be true, but this isn't the kind of thing you play political games with. If we're going to pull out of the Treaty, it needs to be justified by something very concrete. As Seattle Husker said, Russia may be violating the Treaty. If that's the case, then that's enough reason, but we need to hear specifics on that.

Did a little digging. Based on NYT reports it seems the US thinks Russia has violated a missile treaty. I'm not sure if that's what's driving this legislation. Usually when large weapons contract discussion surface they aren't driven as much by international relations but rather where the weapons are being made and who in the defense industry is producing them.

 

[iatrogenic]

Some people never learn. You'd think the whole pizzagate conspiracy BS would have been a wakeup call but now they believe that Pakistani Intelligence was also involved. Of course, most of the /t_donald crowd also believes that Podesta's password was "password".

Whether it was "password" or he was so dumb a phishing email got him really doesn't matter. The important point is that the hack exposed the MSM conspiracy with the DNC. Actual evidence was provided. Actual evidence sets that particular conspiracy apart from the "We lost because Trump colluded with the Russians" fantasy land witch hunt which has zero evidence.

You would think the wake up call should have been answered by the libs after Trump outsmarted all of them, but they just can't seem to grasp the obvious facts that keep smacking them in the face. Maybe they could ***** some more about Trump not willing to accept the election results.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Did a little digging. Based on NYT reports it seems the US thinks Russia has violated a missile treaty. I'm not sure if that's what's driving this legislation. Usually when large weapons contract discussion surface they aren't driven as much by international relations but rather where the weapons are being made and who in the defense industry is producing them.

"We believe that the Russians have deployed a land-based cruise missile that violates the spirit and intent of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty." I don't like this kind of language. When someone says something violate the "spirit and intent" of something, that usually means "it doesn't violate anything but we don't like it." This is the same language Musberger's "sources" used about an alleged US violation of the Treaty. I looked into the allegation, read the Treaty, and they were completely full of crap.

I'm not saying these guys are wrong or lying. They have a lot more credibility than Russian tin foil hat people, but I just need to learn more specifics about it.

 

[Musburger1]

In an interview with Corbett yesterday, he went into the background of post war North Korea. He stated an agreement was made that neither side would introduce new weapons. Both sides could replace old weapons, but no additional weapons could be added to the arsenal as part of the agreement. Then in 1957 Eisenhower unilaterally ditched the agreement and introduced nukes to South Korea. Basically, when you have the power, you do whatever the hell you want to because you can make or break agreements and what can anybody do about it?

No matter who is or isn't "in the wrong" with respect to the missile treaty between the US and Russia, the trend is accelerating escalation on both all sides. Reportedl, much of the Cold War 50s and 60s had Americans fearful of nuclear armagheddan. For whatever reason, that isn't on anybody's radar screen as even a possibility. Why is that so?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Reportedl, much of the Cold War 50s and 60s had Americans fearful of nuclear armagheddan. For whatever reason, that isn't on anybody's radar screen as even a possibility. Why is that so?

Because Russia isn't seen as an equal by the US anymore. That bothers Russia more than the US.

 

[djimaplon]

Because Russia isn't seen as an equal by the US anymore. That bothers Russia more than the US.

Russia = aggy

 

[Musburger1]

Because Russia isn't seen as an equal by the US anymore. That bothers Russia more than the US.

That may be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That may be the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

You asked why nobody cares. Whether it's arrogance on the US side or a longing for historical prominence by the Russians, we are not on equal ground like we were during the Cold War. Russia is working hard to become more of a threat but still, we are not equals anymore in military prowess or global influence in comparison to the Cold War.

 

[Musburger1]

You asked why nobody cares. Whether it's arrogance on the US side or a longing for historical prominence by the Russians, we are not on equal ground like we were during the Cold War. Russia is working hard to become more of a threat but still, we are not equals anymore in military prowess or global influence in comparison to the Cold War.

What does surviving a nuclear attack have to with equality, economic, military, or otherwise? Is there some kind of an impenitral dome around our air space I'm not aware of?

 

[Seattle Husker]

What does surviving a nuclear attack have to with equality, economic, military, or otherwise? Is there some kind of an impenitral dome around our air space I'm not aware of?

OK. So we should worry about Russia like any other country with nuclear missile capabilities. I can agree with that.

 

[djimaplon]

You asked why nobody cares. Whether it's arrogance on the US side or a longing for historical prominence by the Russians, we are not on equal ground like we were during the Cold War. Russia is working hard to become more of a threat but still, we are not equals anymore in military prowess or global influence in comparison to the Cold War.

Or maybe the majority of true patriotic Americans like Musberger1 realize that Russia only wants to be our friend and truly have our best interests at heart, notwithstanding what Pence said in Georgia recently of course.

 

[Musburger1]

Or maybe the majority of true patriotic Americans like Musberger1 realize that Russia only wants to be our friend and truly have our best interests at heart, notwithstanding what Pence said in Georgia recently of course.

It seems to be the Russophobes like yourself who have no fear and want to see the US bomb the hell out of everyone and label anyone who questions you as a Putin lover.

 

[djimaplon]

It seems to be the Russophobes like yourself who have no fear and want to see the US bomb the hell out of everyone and label anyone who questions you as a Putin lover.

Point of clarification...where you see Russia in my post, think Russian Government, ie. Putin, unless I incorrectly assumed that you understood that. Yes, I oppose much of Russian policy because much of it is antithetical to US policy, at least that seemed to be a theme in Pence's recent overseas visits.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It seems to be the Russophobes like yourself who have no fear and want to see the US bomb the hell out of everyone and label anyone who questions you as a Putin lover.

The Putin lover is well established based on posting history. Nobody wants any nuclear showdown and we are miles away from that. It's not lost on the "Russophobes" that a nuclear showdown is yet another way for Russia to reassert it's past greatness. In the end, Putin isn't launching any Nukes because he like is wealth, fame and power which would be gone in an instant.

 

[4th_floor]

Russia = aggy

We have aggy, sand aggy, Bible aggy, Okie aggy, and Corn aggy. Now we have Vodka aggy.

 

[Musburger1]

Point of clarification...where you see Russia in my post, think Russian Government, ie. Putin, unless I incorrectly assumed that you understood that. Yes, I oppose much of Russian policy because much of it is antithetical to US policy, at least that seemed to be a theme in Pence's recent overseas visits.

Like it or not, Russia is neither an adversary nor a vassal, but a competitor with the US. Every military action taken by the Russian government under Putin has been a response to a US provocation. The US government does not want competition whether from Russia or China, but both of these countries refuse to become vessels. If you oppose Russian policy, what you are saying is you believe Russia should remain weak and sell off the countries assets as it did in the 90s.

 

[Musburger1]

The Putin lover is well established based on posting history. Nobody wants any nuclear showdown and we are miles away from that. It's not lost on the "Russophobes" that a nuclear showdown is yet another way for Russia to reassert it's past greatness. In the end, Putin isn't launching any Nukes because he like is wealth, fame and power which would be gone in an instant.

I think we are miles away but rapidly moving closer. Trade wars will be a precursor as well as arming Kiev with lethal weapons and eventually a retaliatory strike by Russia somewhere in Europe. Perhaps the US will first support a coup in Venezuela or even attack Iran. Wouldn't all that be great?

 

[djimaplon]

Like it or not, Russia is neither an adversary nor a vassal, but a competitor with the US. Every military action taken by the Russian government under Putin has been a response to a US provocation. The US government does not want competition whether from Russia or China, but both of these countries refuse to become vessels. If you oppose Russian policy, what you are saying is you believe Russia should remain weak and sell off the countries assets as it did in the 90s.

Dissecting your statement I find many logical flaws and inconsistencies.

Like it or not, Russia is neither an adversary nor a vassal, but a competitor with the US.

I guess "adversary" and "competitor" are not synonyms, but maybe my comprehension of their respective meanings is mistaken.

Every military action taken by the Russian government under Putin has been a response to a US provocation.

An arguable point perhaps. Speaking of vassal states, I suppose you speak of US supporting Ukraine sovereignty a provocation.

The US government does not want competition whether from Russia or China, but both of these countries refuse to become vessels.

Points of clarification when you say "competition" are you talking business or geopolitical spheres of influence. Using your "Not wanting competition" to mean working towards its elimination, it follows that you are accusing the US Government of undermining sovereign governments and/or undermining free markets. I find it ironic that some of the latter is Trump policy from a global economic perspective. Nevertheless, if it is as you say, it also follows that the Russians and Chinese do not want US competition.

If you oppose Russian policy, what you are saying is you believe Russia should remain weak and sell off the countries assets as it did in the 90s.

Not sure how you draw such a conclusion, but let me take that statement from the conclusion and see if it is consistent with the premise. To support Russian Policy would mean to support a strong Russia (economic and politically) and bolster country assets. Supporting the policy means also supporting the actions to achieve its ends. If you need to know what I see as US policy and why I see Russian Policy ( interpreted slightly differently from your portrayal) as antithetical to it you merely need to read Mike Pence's recent speeches in his recent Eastern European Tour which ironically, undermines Trump's policy towards Russia.

 

[OUBubba]

I think we are miles away but rapidly moving closer. Trade wars will be a precursor as well as arming Kiev with lethal weapons and eventually a retaliatory strike by Russia somewhere in Europe. Perhaps the US will first support a coup in Venezuela or even attack Iran. Wouldn't all that be great?

Trade war? Russia would be our 4th largest state in GDP. Ahead of Florida. The only war that they're going to get involved in is to go around and stir up Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, etc.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trade war? Russia would be our 4th largest state in GDP. Ahead of Florida. The only war that they're going to get involved in is to go around and stir up Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, etc.

Russia's is at a severe disadvantage in any economic trade war. The only leverage they have is fossil fuels which could easily be replaced by OPEC/Western sources. Military/intelligence actions is the extent of Russia's ability to project power beyond their immediate borders.

 

[Musburger1]

Russia's is at a severe disadvantage in any economic trade war. The only leverage they have is fossil fuels which could easily be replaced by OPEC/Western sources. Military/intelligence actions is the extent of Russia's ability to project power beyond their immediate borders.

Uranium enrichment. Guys, way down the road, this is a card that could be played.
https://mishtalk.com/2017/07/29/foolish-russia-sanctions-how-might-russia-strike-back/

 

[Seattle Husker]

Uranium enrichment. Guys, way down the road, this is a card that could be played.
https://mishtalk.com/2017/07/29/foolish-russia-sanctions-how-might-russia-strike-back/

With our nuclear capabilities you don't think the US could quickly standup this capability? I suspect the only reason we've acquiesced this industry to Russia is for environmental concerns.

 

[Musburger1]

With our nuclear capabilities you don't think the US could quickly standup this capability? I suspect the only reason we've acquiesced this industry to Russia is for environmental concerns.

There's no doubt the US has the ability resurrect enrichment facilities, but it's a question of time. How long a transition period? Just a few months would bring about serious consequences.

 

[Seattle Husker]

There's no doubt the US has the ability resurrect enrichment facilities, but it's a question of time. How long a transition period? Just a few months would bring about serious consequences.

If we don't have a stockpile built up of enriched uranium (like our Strategic Petroleum Reserve) then we have worse government operation problems than any of us have ever dreamed of.