Trumps defense secretary Gen. James Mattis Placing Russia first among threats

This is typical, American, side-step, cockamamie.

FIRST: Establish and nurture a 'truism' that conspiracy theories are bad things - fantasies.
SECOND: Anything that has yet to be proven against the American government being put on the shelf as a conspiracy theory.
THIRD: Advancing the 'truism' to include anything that would be against its own government's claim to uphold but not to include that of other nations. In other words, encouraging conspiracy theories in other nations and treating those not as fantasies but as reliable convictions.

So now you are saying that it is most likely that I am treating criticism of Russia as conspiracy theory fantasies rather than treating them as trustworthy. Sorry, but it won't work. Either produce the proof or pedal your accusations somewhere else.

 

Hillary Clinton isn't even in power, and these accusations about people dying around her are dubious - so much so that she hasn't been arrested and charged, and believe me, she would be if there were anything to them.

 

by who ? by trolls from Olgino and small group of freaks - conspirologists?

 

Propaganda in you tube could never derail a cause of peace like the unity of Russia and Europe,
it's too miniscule and irrelevant.

 

Irrelevant with EU/US and Russia.

 

Seems you may not have fully understood what I wrote. I'm saying that if Hillary were in fact responsible for these deaths we've heard about, then she would have been arrested - by American law enforcement - and charged with a relevant crime. I don't believe that there is anything to these accusations. They cropped up during campaign season, when "Crooked Hillary" was the meme. But yes, these accusations were made by freaks and conspirologists.

 

So your best defense is that Hillary hasn't been arrested? I guess there must really be WMD's in Irak otherwise Bush/Chenny/Rumsfeld/Blair would have been arrested, huh? After all, that little hoax cost about a million lives, never mind the 3 or 4 accredited to Hillary's cover-up.

And you think that I should "believe you"?

 

Competitors are not always enemies.

 

thats what I thought. Russia never attacked US right? Same as North Korea.

My view is the only enemy of people in America are these psycos in US who is enjoying schizophrenia induced by this system of society. There is some here.. I forgot his ID. But he sure needs some love and care.

 

Another typical American propaganda
https://rsf.org/en/ranking

ruSSia is in 148 place [:

 

Hillary is top - manger , ulus of juchi was so scary of here, that put its entire TROLL army all TV.ru channels , all fascist and extreme left parties (on Kremlin pay check) against her , and got a republican, LOL, mongols juchi are such morons ...

 

I think you should try thinking critically and not conflate different matters that are, in reality, very different from one another.

 

Yes, they may yet end up regretting Trump's victory. His cabinet appointments in particular are not the most friendly or trusting toward Russia, and now Trump is finally getting proper, full information about what the Russians have been up to. One of his major problems so far has been a woeful lack of information about all manner of world affairs, including of course why it is that the US has been tough with Russia and not buddy-buddy.

 

in couple of weeks USA/Turkey friendly sunni-arab rebels in Syria is gonna start attack stretched shia- alavites lines , what do you think will happened then between Putler and Trump ?)

 

How is what a threat to America? Russian aggression or our membership in NATO?

Since I subscribe to the notion that there is more to America than the dirt we're standing on, I consider the prospect of spilling American blood and treasure a threat to America.

Who stated or implied that he has aspirations to conquer the entire continent?

What does?

The Founders negotiated a mutual defense treaty with France, did they not?

I'm also unaware of any article or clause in the Constitution that forbids the United States government from creating and/or joining a mutual defense alliance.

For the same reason why they would have to come to our defense if the U.S. was attacked - because we are all members of a mutual defense alliance.

 

Precisely what I am thinking about your non-logic.

 

"Georgian threat"?

Now, there's a curious, if not amusing, concept.

And then there's the matter of how, despite the Russian military's notoriously poor logistics, they conveniently had an entire army ready to rumble through the Roki Tunnel after their South Ossetian proxies instigated the conflict.

 

Full information about what the Russians have been up to? And for how long have they been "up to" this, and then last question....what has the current President.....the man in the Oval Office right now.....what has he done about it?

Fckn.......oops.

 

I don't know, because I don't have security clearance. That's the point. But we do know the accusations and a cursory version of the evidence for them.

 

the problem also, that many dont understand nature of the total (hybride)war

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

 

Assuming what you say about Russia is true, that they want to reincorporate European territories back into Russia, how is that a threat to America?

Why would you subscribe to that notion?

That prospect only exists because the US government insists on commingling our sovereignty with foreign countries that have nothing to do with our common defense as a nation.

You didn't. But "revanchist" implies that he has some designs on Europe, either in part or in whole. In either case, I believe there is little evidence which demonstrates any "revanchist" tendencies on Putin's part.

One treaty made with one country that was instrumental in our revolution against Britain and which was never acted upon and dissolved in 1800.

A far cry from a broad, indefinite entanglement with several European countries, many of whom have little to nothing to contribute to America in the way of our defense.

But don't take my word for it:

Seems pretty clear there was a firm consensus among the founding fathers that America's independence and liberty depended in large part upon remaining neutral and detached with regards to foreign entanglements, especially European ones.

There is no such article or clause, obviously. But the words and actions of the founding fathers evince a strong desire to remain neutral with regards to foreign affairs.

That's not much a reason though, since we don't really need them for our defense. It's an entirely one-sided relationship that has the potential to drag Americans into a conflict that has little if anything to do with our general welfare and our common defense. The fact that the US government agreed to this is not proof that it's a good idea or that it's consistent with the founding principles of this country.

 

The Georgian government under Sakasshvilli launched a surprise attack on South Ossetia in an attempt to reintegrate that territory into Georgia proper. Russian troops were in South Ossetia at the invitation of the Ossetian people. Therefore, the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia represented a clear threat to the civilian population and the Russian troops stationed there. This was the same conclusion that an independent European investigative body reached after it examined the origins of the conflict.

The Georgian-Ossetian border was a military hot-spot and Sakaasvhilli was a belligerent proxy himself, of the USA. It only makes sense that the Russians would make preparations to counter his aggression.

 

I anticipated that in the question I asked you. Am I correct to presume that you consider our membership in NATO a threat to America?

For starters, I consider our people part of our country.

I would argue that the prospect exists because we remain in NATO.

He's shown his revanchist impulses in Ukraine and Georgia, but they're not members of NATO. What concerns us as a member of NATO is the debate in some circles in Moscow concerning the legitimacy of the independence of the Baltic states.

The treaty and principle still apply.

I would agree with you there.

Thank you for taking the time to find and post that. Our leaders would do well to heed their warnings.

And most especially French and British ones.

Can you say "Libya"?

That was certainly desirable at the time. No doubt, their prudence is worth emulating.

You don't need to convince me that we need to have a debate about the relevance of NATO and our commitment to that organization. I see little but irrational hysteria from the people who freak out when Trump says we need to reconsider these things.

 

I don't care if your right or left. General Mattis is the modern day Hannibal of Carthage. HE is beloved by those who served with him and is a soldiers soldier. Everyone should support him.

 

Not the Democrats, their hate for America and Americans gets in the way.