Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Russia Offered Bounty For Killing US Troops

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
An interesting interview here:

That was a very powerful interview. Thank you for putting it up. I usually miss a lot of CNN pieces unless they are rebroadcast elsewhere. Best line: "He'd take help from Albanian folksingers."
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
This is the latest ad by The Lincoln Project. It is very powerful. If you don't want to watch it, do not watch it. There is no violence, but strong feelings against what President Trump did to betray American troops are expressed. I have explained in other threads that The Lincoln Project is a group of conservative Republicans and former Republicans united to defeat President Trump.

 

Demon

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
1,050
That was a very powerful interview. Thank you for putting it up. I usually miss a lot of CNN pieces unless they are rebroadcast elsewhere. Best line: "He'd take help from Albanian folksingers."
Yeah, I'm listening to it again, since I know I missed some the first go round. Right off the bat "they've been told not to bring up further attacks against the US to Trump" is jaw dropping.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
I watched the news with Ari Melber on MSNBC. There will be calls for sanctions against Russia for the bounties Russia paid for the deaths of American troops, they just won't be initiated by the president since he has made no move to do anything. Nancy Pelosi spoke about sanctions and so did a CIA analyst. As one guest on "The Beat", Ari Melber's show, put it Trump gets upset when someone takes a knee during the national anthem because it is (supposedly) disrespectful, but does nothing when a foreign power targets American soldiers.
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,588
Deb - Meanwhile......in my part of the World military aggression between Australia and China has reached Cold War and pre WWII escalation - Trump has had a heavy hand in the rising tension.....
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
Deb - Meanwhile......in my part of the World military aggression between Australia and China has reached Cold War and pre WWII escalation - Trump has had a heavy hand in the rising tension.....
I have to admit that I have not followed Australia's foreign policy and its clash with China. I have been looking at the United States and China in the South China Sea and also at Hong Kong and how America's falling prestige, power, and-frankly-concern for Hong Kong has left Hong Kong increasingly at the mercy of China.

I would love a précis on what is happening now between Australia and China.

Deb :wavey:
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,588
I have to admit that I have not followed Australia's foreign policy and its clash with China. I have been looking at the United States and China in the South China Sea and also at Hong Kong and how America's falling prestige, power, and-frankly-concern for Hong Kong has left Hong Kong increasingly at the mercy of China.

I would love a précis on what is happening now between Australia and China.

Deb :wavey:
The Australian government just announced a massive increase in militarisation and that they were spending billions in buying long range missiles to defend our shores due to the escalating tensions with China.

There have been numerous allegations from the Australian and US Governments aimed at China everything from hiding and under reporting Covid - 19 (which they did) and calling for the Chinese authorities be held accountable (which they never will be), to examples of spying, recently they (China) hacked into Australian Government agencies and then accused Australia of doing the same thing.

It's currently being referred to by people in the "know" politically as worse than the cold war (Russia versus the US) and I've heard military academics and strategists say that China has crossed a line in the South China sea and in the Indo-Pacific region of late that is as bad if not worse than we saw Nazi Germany before WWII - which are rather alarming words......

The massive increase in militarisation if nothing else by Australia should have everyone worried. Maybe just a precautionary move but we are getting ready and able to defend both our seas and our country.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
The Australian government just announced a massive increase in militarisation and that they were spending billions in buying long range missiles to defend our shores due to the escalating tensions with China.

There have been numerous allegations from the Australian and US Governments aimed at China everything from hiding and under reporting Covid - 19 (which they did) and calling for the Chinese authorities be held accountable (which they never will be), to examples of spying, recently they (China) hacked into Australian Government agencies and then accused Australia of doing the same thing.

It's currently being referred to by people in the "know" politically as worse than the cold war (Russia versus the US) and I've heard military academics and strategists say that China has crossed a line in the South China sea and in the Indo-Pacific region of late that is as bad if not worse than we saw Nazi Germany before WWII - which are rather alarming words......

The massive increase in militarisation if nothing else by Australia should have everyone worried. Maybe just a precautionary move but we are getting ready and able to defend both our seas and our country.
Thanks for the heads up, @arkieb1. If one is American and only reads American newspapers and watches American television, he misses a lot. I will try to do a little reading about this now that you have my attention. I had been interested in what was going on in The South China Sea, but domestic American politics (coronavirus and police brutality) and Trump's interaction with China and Russia for his own advantage led me to neglect other matters.

Deb :wavey:
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,728
The CCP has always maintained that the international lines were drawn by Westerners without inviting the Chinese to the table. They insist on territorial integrity based on maps from the Ming dynasty, when as you should know, Zheng He sailed pretty extensively. The Ming dynasty map does stop at Southeast Asia, not at East Africa. The South China Sea territory dispute is one of the reasons that Trump and his cabinet were saying from the beginning of his presidency that we'll have war within ten years with China. I think the whole coronavirus situation has set back the timeline on that by at least two years, since quite a few aircraft carriers in the Pacific had to dock due to the virus and left patrols in the Pacific and the South China Sea.

China also disputed the border with India, which was drawn up by a British colonialist in the 1800s who did not consult Chinese or Indian maps of the time. China went to war with India in 1969-70 and won. That war was the reason relations between China and the USSR fractured further and left China open to relations with the US under Nixon.

I'm curious, is China going to have Russian support if it goes to war with the US over the South China Sea?
 

Musia

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
562
I'm curious, is China going to have Russian support if it goes to war with the US over the South China Sea?
I hope there will be no any war, but Russia will always be supportive and secretly financing everything that causes damages to the USA. They always did, I mean first USSR then Russia. And they will always do and wish us harm. No matter who is a President of the USA. No matter! Same regarding friendship with China. But it is always good to smile for camera and shake hands while dealing with the Russian leaders. 1'.jpg I think China is a real threat to the US, much more serious than Russia.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,728
I hope there will be no any war, but Russia will always be supportive and secretly financing everything that causes damages to the USA. They always did, I mean first USSR then Russia. And they will always do and wish us harm. No matter who is a President of the USA. No matter! Same regarding friendship with China. But it is always good to smile for camera and shake hands while dealing with the Russian leaders. 1'.jpg I think China is a real threat to the US, much more serious than Russia.
I remember Kissinger met with Donald Trump and Jared Kushner in Trump Tower before his inauguration as President. I believe that Kissinger would very likely have suggested for the US to ally with Russia against China, and that would explain why Trump had been soft on Putin. However, the interference with elections, has made alliance with Russia or of the question.

Russia doesn't have the power to challenge the US anymore. China definitely has the power to overtake the US in terms of science, technology, innovation and GDP even though it can never reach the same per capita. Chinese people and government put so much emphasis on these aspects, that the US would lose if it snoozes.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
7,060
Deb, here's a very interesting article on how to handle the Trump administration and the death bounty's. Benghazi! (I always put an exclamation point on Benghazi!).. This article points out that the repubs have a history of investing American deaths, and to follow the template of their Benghazi! trials etc. Good reading.


Benghazi probe offers a road map for Trump’s Russian bounty briefing

Republicans investigating the 2012 attack in Libya got a rare look at Obama's intelligence briefings.

Lawmakers demanding to know whether President Donald Trump and his inner circle ignored intelligence about Russian bounties on U.S. troops have a clear precedent for getting answers: Benghazi.

The special Republican-led House committee investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on a U.S. mission in the conflict-torn Libyan city conducted an extensive — and possibly unprecedented — dive into President Barack Obama’s daily intelligence briefings. The panel obtained testimony from the CIA officers who analyzed the intel and even the briefer who regularly delivered Obama his daily reports.

In the panel’s final report, it described its review of Obama’s daily briefings as “one of the few, if only, times in history outside scrutiny has ever been applied to the PDB process.”

Now, as lawmakers of both parties demand a similar level of detail from Trump, the GOP Benghazi report presents a road map of sorts. It’s also a potent talking point for Congress if the White House blocks oversight efforts.

Capitol Hill Democrats, in particular, are demanding to know whether Trump received intelligence indicating Russia paid Taliban-linked militants to assassinate American service members. Trump has denied being briefed on the subject, even as White House officials confirmed to lawmakers that the matter was included in Trump’s written daily brief in February. Trump reportedly rarely reads his written brief and relies instead on oral briefings. House Democratic leaders, who have been briefed on the Russian bounties by the White House and intelligence leaders in recent days, have emerged with sharp criticism of Trump’s reading habits. After a high-level briefing Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a joint statement saying, “Our Armed Forces would be better served if President Trump spent more time reading his daily briefing.”

Republicans, too, have raised questions about whether Trump was — or should have been — fully informed about the intelligence his agencies collected, which has appeared with increasing specificity in news reports, particularly in The New York Times, in recent days. “[T]his Congress should want to know who knew what, when. And the administration is claiming that the president didn’t know — but if he didn’t know, it’s a big deal,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Monday.

The House select committee on Benghazi — which featured Republicans like Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo, who have gone on to become some of Trump’s closest allies in Congress and his Cabinet — interviewed Obama’s briefer on April 29, 2016. The briefer, who wasn’t identified by name, was described as the “executive coordinator” of Obama’s daily brief and detailed her briefing practices for the committee. “[D]uring the weeks that I produced the PDB, I would produce it, and then they would drive me to the White House, and I would ... brief Jack Lew first, who was the chief of staff,” the briefer said, noting that she typically arrived at the White House by 7 a.m. “And if the President required a brief during that day or chose to take a brief, then I would give him a brief, and if not ... then the [director of national intelligence] would brief him.” The briefer said when Obama didn’t require an in-person briefing, she would hand her written briefing book to the White House usher to deliver to him instead. When the president was traveling, she would join and brief him personally. “That was my responsibility whenever we would fly,” she said. The briefer then described her specific handling of Obama’s brief on Sept. 12, 2012, the morning after the Benghazi attacks. That day, the president was not traveling, so her driver dropped her off at the White House around 7 a.m., she handed the booklet to the usher and briefed Lew in person. Republicans, at the time, raised serious alarms about the PDB process, noting that erroneous information, as well as some sloppy errors, were discovered in what they said should be an “airtight process.” “Whether these errors are simply a coincidence or part of a larger systemic issue is unknown,” the GOP report concluded. And they said those errors “raise major analytic tradecraft issues that require serious examination but are beyond the purview of this Committee.” The GOP also used the Benghazi episode, in which a U.S. ambassador, a U.S. Embassy official and two CIA contractors were killed, as a cudgel against Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The Washington Post reported that several deaths had been linked to the explosive intelligence on the Russian bounties.

Democrats on the Benghazi committee included Reps. Adam Schiff and Adam Smith, who both attended the White House's Tuesday briefing for Democratic lawmakers on the Russian bounty intelligence. Schiff, who chairs the Intelligence Committee, and Smith, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, are both expected to play a role in any congressional investigation or oversight on the Russian bounty controversy.
During the Benghazi negotiations, the Obama White House blocked any inquiries about what Obama and other White House officials actually said during his briefings, and Obama himself did not respond to a list of 15 questions the committee delivered, including one that specifically asked whether he personally received and read his PDB books on Sept. 12 and Sept. 13. But most of the information was provided through painstaking talks and without subpoenas. "In total, the White House made nine productions of documents to the Committee," according to the panel's final report. "To be clear the White House did not provide all of the information the Committee requested but the Committee was granted access to information no other congressional committee accessed."

A similar level of inquiry on the Russian bounty intelligence would answer Democrats' growing question about whether Trump actually received an oral briefing on the day in February that the Russian bounty intelligence was included in his written report. It would also indicate how the briefer determined which portions of the written brief to convey to the president, whether she briefed other members of the senior White House staff and if other members of Trump's inner circle regularly read the PDB and discussed it with Trump. Though there is little precedent for investigating the PDB process, President George W. Bush famously declassified a portion of his Aug. 6, 2001, daily briefing that described Osama bin Laden's intent to strike inside the United States, a document that foreshadowed the Sept. 11 attacks a month later.

Michael Morell, who led the CIA during the Benghazi assault and had previously served as Bush's PDB briefer, described the PDB process at length in his book, "The Great War of Our Time." Morell wrote that he began compiling intelligence at around 4 a.m. every day — organizing, synthesizing and ordering them to present to the president and his inner circle, which he said almost always included Vice President Dick Cheney, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and chief of staff Andy Card. Occasionally, Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, would join the briefings, a right generally afforded to former presidents. Morell said his in-person briefings with Bush were freewheeling, with the president often interrupting to ask questions about how agencies had obtained certain pieces of information so he could judge their reliability.
Former Trump advisers have described the president as the antithesis of Bush, often talking over his briefers and holding intelligence findings in low regard. But Trump's allies say he's similarly probing in his own briefings. "This president, I'll tell you, is the most informed person on Planet Earth when it comes to the threats that we face," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Tuesday.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
Deb, here's a very interesting article on how to handle the Trump administration and the death bounty's. Benghazi! (I always put an exclamation point on Benghazi!)
Thanks for posting this, Bayek. The "Morning Joe" show today spotlighted the (endless) Benghazi hearings, too I cannot imagine Jim Jordan and Trey Gowdy giving an investigation into Donald Trump's betrayal of American troops their blood, sweat, and tears for five years. Only Hillary Clinton has the power to get them that juiced up.

638525
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
It's a good thing we didn't elect Hillary Clinton. Her Benghazi issues would have diverted us from the serious issues facing our government.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
I hope there will be no any war, but Russia will always be supportive and secretly financing everything that causes damages to the USA. They always did, I mean first USSR then Russia. And they will always do and wish us harm. No matter who is a President of the USA. No matter! Same regarding friendship with China. But it is always good to smile for camera and shake hands while dealing with the Russian leaders. 1'.jpg I think China is a real threat to the US, much more serious than Russia.
By the way, Putin hates Hillary Clinton. Passionately. It is one reason he so ardently supports Donald Trump. Someday we will find out the other reasons.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
@arkieb1,

There is information available in "The New York Times" which can at least start me off on explorations of current doings between China and her close neighbors. This article was pretty good. I saw how Australia has been drawn into protecting other, smaller countries from Chinese aggression. I hope the US does not leave Australia to do the protecting on its own!

Deb

 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,588
@deb - yes I've read similar..... China currently seems like they want to expand their territory which obviously creates an issue for both of our countries.....
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
@deb - yes I've read similar..... China currently seems like they want to expand their territory which obviously creates an issue for both of our countries.....
It affects some of us here in the United States, some of us who see China's expansion having an effect on Hong Kong, Japan, and other places that China intimidates. Unfortunately, it does not bother President Trump at all, because what happens to Hong Kong or Japan (or any place not affecting his bottom line) does not matter a whit to him.
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,588
It affects some of us here in the United States, some of us who see China's expansion having an effect on Hong Kong, Japan, and other places that China intimidates. Unfortunately, it does not bother President Trump at all, because what happens to Hong Kong or Japan (or any place not affecting his bottom line) does not matter a whit to him.
I'm not sure that's entirely true the US has warships and submarines patrolling the waters around where the action is, Trump himself might be clueless but you have military strategists and staff that would be following everything that is going on. There is speculation here, that if China did attack anyone, South Korea would be on China's side and so too possibly would Russia....
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
I'm not sure that's entirely true the US has warships and submarines patrolling the waters around where the action is, Trump himself might be clueless but you have military strategists and staff that would be following everything that is going on. There is speculation here, that if China did attack anyone, South Korea would be on China's side and so too possibly would Russia....
What is in it for South Korea to side with China? I will probably read up on this when I have free time, but I would like to have the general idea now. It doesn't seem immediately obvious.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
Here is an excerpt from a July 4 article in "The New York Times"

"WASHINGTON — Two American aircraft carriers sailed to the South China Sea on Saturday for what Navy officials described as a freedom-of-navigation operation while China’s military conducts exercises nearby.

The carriers — the Ronald Reagan and the Nimitz — deployed 'in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific,' according to a statement by the Navy’s Seventh Fleet. It said that the ships, which were accompanied by warships and aircraft, were conducting exercises to improve air defense and long-range missile strikes in 'a rapidly evolving area of operations.'
Beijing has staked claim to much of the South China Sea, a strategic waterway through which one-third of global shipping flows, over the objections of other regional powers and an international tribunal that has rejected China’s assertions.
The deployment of an American aircraft carrier and its strike force is often used as a signal to deter adversaries. Deploying two at once is recognized as a significant show of force; in 2016, the then Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter toured two aircraft carriers that were cruising through the South China Sea as a reminder to Beijing of the United States’ commitment to allies in the region.

A Navy official on Saturday described the mission as a routine operation, downplaying the specter of a deliberate show of force to the Chinese military as it conducted its own military exercises in the sea. The official, who was not authorized to describe the details and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the carriers’ mission had been previously planned to ensure that shipping lanes and navigation remained open in international waters.

Lt. James Adams, a U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman, said the operation 'is not in response to any political or world events.'
But earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was monitoring China’s military exercises in disputed waters and territory near the Paracel Islands.
'Conducting military exercises over disputed territory in the South China Sea is counterproductive to efforts at easing tensions and maintaining stability,' the Pentagon said in a July 2 statement.
It also said that the Chinese exercises, which were supposed to conclude on Sunday, violated a 2002 agreement on international conduct in the South China Sea. Beijing’s actions, the statement said, 'will further destabilize the situation in the South China Sea'

The Chinese maritime authorities declared in late June that an expanse of the South China Sea around the Paracel Islands — called the Xisha Islands in Chinese — would be off limits to other vessels for the first five days of July while Chinese military exercises took place there.

The Chinese government had no immediate public reaction to the announcement about the two American carriers, but Beijing is most unlikely to buy the idea that the move was just a coincidence. A smaller U.S. Navy operation in the South China Sea over recent days had already drawn ire from China.
'This provocative conduct by the United States gravely violates the relevant international laws and rules, and seriously violates Chinese sovereignty and security interests,' Senior Col. Li Huamin, a spokesman of the Chinese military Southern Theater Command, said after the U.S.S. Gabrielle Giffords, a littoral combat ship, conducted operations last week in the South China Sea, according to Global Times, a Beijing newspaper."

 
Last edited:

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,588
What is in it for South Korea to side with China? I will probably read up on this when I have free time, but I would like to have the general idea now. It doesn't seem immediately obvious.
I think it would be a case of making the most of an unstable situation. Or the fact they have similar common enemies ie most of the Western World......
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,520
Two U.S. Navy aircraft carriers are conducting exercises in the contested South China Sea within sight of Chinese naval vessels spotted near the flotilla, the commander of one of the carriers, the USS Nimitz, told Reuters on Monday.

'They have seen us and we have seen them,' Rear Admiral James Kirk said in a telephone interview from the Nimitz, which has been conducting flight drills in the waterway with the Seventh Fleet carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, that began on the U.S. Independence Day holiday of July 4.

The U.S. Navy has brought carriers together for such shows of force in the region in the past, but this year’s drill comes amid heightened tension as the United States criticises China over its novel coronavirus response and accuses it of taking advantage of the pandemic to push territorial claims in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

China’s foreign ministry said the United States had deliberately sent its ships to the South China Sea to flex its muscles and accused it of trying to drive a wedge between countries in the region."

 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,728
What is in it for South Korea to side with China? I will probably read up on this when I have free time, but I would like to have the general idea now. It doesn't seem immediately obvious.
FYI, it's in South Korea's interest to side with China because of the following foreseeable situation.

S. Korea sides with Japan and US. US insists on using S. Korea as a military base, or at least uses S. Korean waters for its navy. N. Korea bombs S. Korea.

S. Korea has no quibbles with China in terms of territory or trade war issues. Why would it risk its own security (aka escalating N. Korean tensions) to side with the US?
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Celebratory Engagement Ring Upgrade And Bracelet
    Celebratory Engagement Ring Upgrade And Bracelet
    Chiguys's Cushion Cut Engagement Ring
    Chiguys's Cushion Cut Engagement Ring
    Archduchess Eleonore von Habsburg and Jérôme d’Ambrosio Royal Wedding
    Archduchess Eleonore von Habsburg and Jérôme d’Ambrosio Royal Wedding

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top