To try and address your three points above, and pose a question or two in return.Originally Posted by Banditbandit
=======
"Even if you buy into the idea that Clinton and Obama should be prosecuted - you have to see that
Russian engagement in the US elections and US politics in the way that is being suggested is a
major issue ..."
========
Why do I "have" to see this as being obvious ?
I might be persuaded to believe "a major issue", if I could see some good evidence of what
Russian engagement in the 2016 US election has "actually occurred to date". As opposed
to just having "been suggested".
True, the Western MSM has been "shouting to the roof-tops" and "pointing fingers in Russia's
(or Putin's) direction" over recent times. But all I keep hearing is only "meddling". Nothing more
specific.
Does that necessarily make it a "major issue" ?
Western MSM have been quite vocal about a whole range of other events over the past 25 years
e.g.
- Bombing of Yugoslavian Serbia by NATO in the 1990's
- WMD's and the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003
- Accusations of massacres and rape prior to invasion of Libya and over-throw of Gaddafi in 2007
- Accusations of civilian massacres and bombings by Assad during the Syrian conflict since 2009
- Murder of civilians by the regime in Ukraine in 2014
But in many cases, as time passed by, truth slowly filtered out, and accusations carried in the
MSM were later seen to be untrue (or have been presented with a very one-sided view). Never
mind, too late now, it's all in the past. Except that the "historical record" is never corrected.
But more importantly, those publicly aired "accusations" were often used to justify political
decisions at the time. And sometimes accompanied by equally dodgy dossiers of "proof". The
"Iraqi WMD's and missiles 45 minutes away" is particularly memorable:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...md-taxi-driver
I don't regard much of western MSM to be particularly reliable sources of information today.
Accordingly, I don't quite share your view that media accusations of Russian meddling in the
2016 US election is currently a "major issue." But each our own opinion.
Mueller has been running an investigation for nearly two years to date. I would have expected
much more progress in that time (or at least some definitive schedule of charges against the
Russians).
For accusations supposedly so serious ("treasonable"), this seems to me an awfully leisurely
paced investigation. You'd almost be forgiven for thinking that there is not much evidence
actually in existence. Or that progress is possibly being delayed for political purpose.
If Mueller was really serious about securing a conviction of "Russian meddling", all he needed
to do was go back to 2009, when he (as acting FBI Director) uncovered a Russian bribery plot
(Uranium One) - even if that incident supposedly benefited the Barack Obama administration
and the Clintons.
According to government documents and interviews at the time:
"...before approving the controversial Uranium One deal with Russia, the Obama administration
participated in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering with Russian officials –
all with the aim to expand Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the U.S."
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...nistration?amp
Surely, that might have yielded a more positive result (unlike all the recent ones involving
campaign receipts, wire fraud, mis-use of funds). And having to rely on "guilt by association".
It could have saved the country a whole lot of time and money (and "Putin was involved").
Why wait until 2016 ?
Was it that an investigation into the earlier incident in 2009 would have possibly ended up
with an indictment and conviction of the "wrong party" (on the US side of the fence) ?
Or was it because, in spite of all the appropriate "electoral controls" in place in 2016, the
"minority" candidate still won the US election (i.e. the public elected the "wrong person") ?
So now it's time to remedy the situation.
=======
"This speaks to the independence of the USA - their sovereignty - and as Russia is an old enemy,
seeks to an enemy undermining the sovereignty of another country and possibly even putting a puppet
into the presidency .... "
=======
Sovereignty - OK
Russia is the old enemy - OK (though China is actively making a play for 1st place, and Iran
has been making a late surge recently)
Possibly putting a puppet into the Presidency - Hmmm ??
I think you'll find that they've been electing "muppets" or "puppets" to the US Presidency
for a long time (certainly for as long as I've been alive).
The only things that may have changed noticeably within that time window have been:
- The greater degree to which they have been manipulated,
- Who has been more successful in doing the manipulation, and
- How increasingly more obvious it has become.
Consider a few US Presidents:
- Truman: The power of the newspapers and Democrat skulduggery to help him secure his election.
- Eisenhower: Beware the Military Industrial Complex (spoken to the nation in his farewell speech).
- JF Kennedy: Possible exception. He proposed political reconciliation with both Castro and Krushchev
as well as an indicated Vietnam withdrawal by the US by end 1965 (but his assassination ended those
ambitions).
- Lyndon Johnson: Escalated US involvement in Vietnam on demand before bailing out of politics (for
his "health sake").
- Richard Nixon: Responded to a request by US Big Business to exit Vietnam (following the 1968 Tet
Offensive), and to "make friends with China" in 1972 (to help facilitate that outcome).
- Ronald Reagan: Star Wars (and a true showman in more ways than one).
- Bill Clinton: Managed to scr*w Russia financially in the 1990's, the US public in the 2000's
(due to his revoking of the Glass-Steagall Act) plus one White House intern (collateral damage).
- GW Bush: the Patriot Act, Afghanistan - "An Ongoing Love Story", Iraq - "Mission Accomplished",
Libya - "Liberated" (along with help from friends UK and France).
- Barack Obama: GFC and "Save the Banks", continued globalisation and increased national debt,
Nobel Peace laureate but overseeing Guantanamo and drone assassinations, not to forget NATO
expansion and Syria (again with old friends UK and France).
The issue today may be that under Trump, some of TPTB have possibly lost sight (or control)
of what's written on the new hymn sheet (the one Donald has been singing from). Plus, he may
have gone solo (rogue?) and have started singing off-tune recently (peace? reduced military
spending?).
Heaven forbid a return to the Peace movement of the 1960's, and all those hippies with their
"peace and love". I mean, who'd be left to fight the wars if everyone all thought that way ?
At least, between the CIA in Afghanistan and Asia (looking after drug supply) plus Big Pharma
and the gangs (looking after drug manufacture and distribution), it should still be possible to
keep most of the other inmates under control (what opioid crisis?).
=======
"If Russia was NOT trying to influence the US elections for an outcome favourable to Russia
why waste time and money, as Russia clearly has, either state-sanctioned or not? "
=======
The only explicit "evidence" I've read of has been mention of some Facebook advertisments,
but starting back in 2014 (well before the 2016 election). As per the following article.
https://williamblum.org/aer/read/156
Don't bother reading all the US interventions that he's listed in the body of the article -
I'm sure that it's all just "fake news".
I do have to hand it to Putin. He must be a smart chap, being able to look that far forward
in time and pick out Trump as the obvious (successful) Republican candidiate, then predict
that Trump would also beat the "sure fire winner" Hillary Clinton. And that the US public
would be gullible enough to deliver.
Either that, or those US electronic voting machines must be even less secure and easier to
hack than touted. [ Ignoring Hillary clInton's private email server. ]
Personally, I'd simply just have offered Trump some loan money (confiscated from oligarchs,
of course) to finance purchase of some new land for a golf course or to build a new hotel,
and been done with it. He's a businessman. He'd have accepted in a flash.
Why "meddle" with a US election ? It all just seems so very cumbersome and unnecessary.
And not very smart at all (and I'm not even a "devious master-mind" like Putin).
But, just assuming for a minute that:
- the Russians actually "meddled" in the 2016 election, and
- the Russians had spent considerable time and money (much more than all the other donors
busy "investing in democracy")
Just exactly HOW did YOU envisage Putin (and Russia) would then take advantage of and get
some benefit from all this newly acquired political control over the US President ? How would it
then play out ?
Would Russia :
e.g.
1 - Get Trump to refuse to start a nuclear war ? Or refuse to fight if Russia started one ?
2 - Get Trump to cancel US / European economic sanctions currently in place against Russia ?
3 - Get Trump to change (revoke) some US legislation to be in Russia's favour ? [ Magnitsky Act ? ]
4 - Get Trump to withdraw US weapons and forces from countries around Russia's borders ? [ Shrink NATO ? ]
5 - Get Trump to agree to renew existing strategic arms treaties soon coming due for rollover ?
6 - Get Trump to allow Russia (and/or Iran) to sell oil and gas to Europe ?
7 - Get Trump to spend less Fed money on the MIC [ building / deploying new US weapons systems]?
8 - Get Trump to back off US plans trying to restrict Russian weapon sales to US allies ?
9 - Get Trump to get the CIA to cease starting colour revolutions all around the globe ?
10 - Get Trump to halt wars in certain countries and withdraw US troops ? [ Syria ? Afghanistan ? ]
11 - Some other cunning option I haven't thought of ?
I think we could safely cross off point 1 above, because all players recognise the "nuclear
winter" that would follow a nuclear war could severely damage or contaminate the Earth
and likely kill off all (or most of) mankind.
But I'd be interested in a reply re any of points 2 through 11 above.
Because I'm struggling to see an option that wouldn't result in one of the following:
- A reduction in political or military tensions (or an improvement in political relations)
- A reduction in the risk of unintended conflict
- A reduction in the number of active wars
- A return of refugees to their home countries
Bookmarks