- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You really think that's an equivalence? She didn't put him on the Nat'l Security Council.
But...Truuuuuuump! Yes?
You really think that's an equivalence? She didn't put him on the Nat'l Security Council.
Happens when you have inexperienced people in positions like this.
This guy Harrington worked for Flynn who worked for Trump. And we all know that Trump wants to make Putin happy. The question is 'Why is that?'
LOL!!
So...someone has an idea...it's dismissed...never seriously considered.
Sounds like a nothingburger to me. Yum, yum...
Removing us troops would do nothing unless it was nato. Russia has felt threatened because to them they have guys on most of their borders with guns pointed at them saying don't worry we won't invade you. Russia is a paranoid country, and has been backstabbed numerous times in history, defense wise they like a buffer zone. Basically nato would have to withdraw from eastern countries to appease russia and leave them feeling safe, otherwise to them it looks like western expansion and buildiong towards an invaSION.
Us removing some troops would still leave the russians paranoid as well as lessening our defense if they take that paranoia to the next level. They either need to stay how they are, or revert to the nato bush senior promised, anything inbetween is simply a waste of time .
Is he qualified to hold that position?
Apparently not.
If this happened under Obama you would be singing a different tune. You would have been asking how someone from a hedge fund lands a job on the National Security Council. You then would be calling for that person to be removed -- and of course, you would have crucified Obama for appointing such an unqualified person in the first place.
And that guy Harrington thought up a stupid plan to make himself look good to his boss's boss, and it was shot down. Happens often in business. Like I said, that's what happens when you have inexperience people in positions like this. I think you're reading too much into it.
Trump didn't didn't appear to have anything to do with it according to the story, yet you still find a way to make it his fault. :shrug:
Then NATO should position enough troops in the Baltic's to make it a red line- just as West Berlin was. Troops in West Berlin were a sacrificial lamb if the USSR attacked, and a red line that could not be crossed without full scale war.
How would you feel if the Russians had a few dozen divisions of troops along the Mexican border? A bit paranoid perhaps?
How would you feel if the Russians had a few dozen divisions of troops along the Mexican border? A bit paranoid perhaps?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-official-floated-withdrawing-us-forces-to-please-putin
A member of Trump’s National Security Council staff had a radical notion: to pare back American troops in Europe as a way to curry favor with the Kremlin.
SPENCER ACKERMAN
01.09.18 7:00 PM ET
A senior National Security Council official proposed withdrawing some U.S. military forces from Eastern Europe as an overture to Vladimir Putin during the early days of the Trump presidency, according to two former administration officials.
While the proposal was ultimately not adopted, it is the first known case of senior aides to Donald Trump seeking to reposition U.S. military forces to please Putin—something that smelled, to a colleague, like a return on Russia’s election-time investment in President Trump. The White House did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast’s request for comment.
The official who offered the proposal, a deputy assistant to Trump for strategic planning, mused in February 2017 about withdrawing U.S. troops close to Russian borders as part of a strategy proposal to “refram[e] our interests within the context of a new relationship with Russia,” the former official told The Daily Beast, who heard this directly from the official, Kevin Harrington.
Harrington is the NSC’s senior official for strategic planning. He had neither military experience nor significant government experience before joining the White House. But he had an influential credential: As a managing director for the Thiel Macro hedge fund, he was close to Trump patron and ally Peter Thiel. Trump’s first national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, announced Harrington’s arrival in early February as part of a “talented group” ready to bring “fresh ideas to the table.”
==============================================================================================
Collusion? What collusion? Blackmail? What blackmail? Why was the Trump NSC looking at ways to please Putin as soon as they moved in?
How would you feel if the Russians had a few dozen divisions of troops along the Mexican border? A bit paranoid perhaps?
It DID happen during the Obama Admin. Only instead of it being merely a suggestion, the USA removed anti-missle batteries from Poland and the Czech Republic, part of the famous "re-set" of USA-Russia relations that occured in that government.
Condemn Trump all you want for having a guy on the NSC who doesnt appear to need to be there. But also recognise the proposal went nowhere.
Israel and most NATO countries in Western Europe approved of the move, news stories show, as they thought the missile system provoked Russia. Initial reactions from Polish and Czech leaders were not thrilled.Obama delegated explaining the decision to an interesting source: Gates, the same official who recommended the missile defense plan to Bush in 2006 to combat the growing threat of Iranian ballistic missiles.
Gates explained why he urged Obama to change course in a 2009 New York Times op-ed and in his 2014 book Duty, in which he described the new strategy as necessary due to changing times, technology and threats. (And in which he said some not-so-nice things about Obama.)
source
The two are not symmetric. The Trump official idea was knee-jerk while the Obama decision, even if you disagree, was well thought out.
So what exactly is the concern here? That Putin is justified in his angst of NATO troops along his western border?
Would there be a less adversarial relationship if those concerns were removed?
Which ironically may be due to nationalism. You're welcome.
However, you are wrong. Facism can arise under any and all forms of government. All it takes is for a few men/women placed on high to ignore the beginnings of it. Such as Antifa who, while crying about facism, are supporting facists and facist ideas. They're among the most contradictory groups I've ever known to exist....yet they have wide support.
Then NATO should position enough troops in the Baltic's to make it a red line- just as West Berlin was. Troops in West Berlin were a sacrificial lamb if the USSR attacked, and a red line that could not be crossed without full scale war.
It's almost all didactic down spiraling up there in a post that is separated by only some sporadic roaming. I suggest going back to square one as a resolution, i.e., discuss the issues and the arguments rather than the posters thx. Virtually all your posts are about the poster so I take this opportunity to point this out and to encourage better posting thx. Try to minimize the many bad habits hanging around.
That is generally what caused russia to become agrressive, maintaining things how they are is one thing, but doubling down on them is a bad idea. As another poster mentioned, how would the us feel if mexico had russian troops stationed there with their cannons and missles pointed their way, with the russians claiming it is just defensive.
Or on the same note would you in canada be fine if the us allied with russia and both mainland us and alaska had troops tanks cannons missles etc aimed at your countries borders, would you view that as simple defense or rather like the russians vs nato who see it as an imminent invasion with the opposition building base before the move. Keep in mind prior to the us the last major power who kept saying we are not going to invade while expanding their territory east ended up invading them, and that was nazi germany.
Trump and the Putin-Trump Fanboyz are instead talking about Nazis. The blatant contradiction is that Trump and His Fanboyz don't like WW II Nazis but they say Nazis in Charlottesville are "good people." And that the MSM in the USA "are the enemy of the people."