(01-15-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 01:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2019 09:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Lad, we need your list of Putin-friendly policies to counter Tanq’s.
Bump
Sorry, busy weekend and in the field, so limited time to engage.
In short, the list tanq provided are small potatoes that don’t come close to equalling the magnitude of weakening or disbanding NATO with regards to Russian ambitions.
Umm, "weakening or disbanding NATO"? How so? By asking that other members step up to the plate and honor their obligations? That sounds like strengthening it to me.
And haven't the left been the ones screaming incessantly that we need to cut defense? The only way for that to happen is for our allies to step up and take more of the burden off our shoulders.
Your last comment is a superb straw man, by the way.
ignore the first paragraph, mischaracterize the last, and ignore the fact that NATO has neither been weakened nor disbanded.
(01-15-2019 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 01:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
Sorry, busy weekend and in the field, so limited time to engage.
In short, the list tanq provided are small potatoes that don’t come close to equalling the magnitude of weakening or disbanding NATO with regards to Russian ambitions.
Umm, "weakening or disbanding NATO"? How so? By asking that other members step up to the plate and honor their obligations? That sounds like strengthening it to me.
And haven't the left been the ones screaming incessantly that we need to cut defense? The only way for that to happen is for our allies to step up and take more of the burden off our shoulders.
Your last comment is a superb straw man, by the way.
ignore the first paragraph, mischaracterize the last, and ignore the fact that NATO has neither been weakened nor disbanded.
Sorry my rely can’t meet your standards. Just wanted to make sure you weren’t fretting too much with my absence. Trying to respond in between field tasks - not sitting at a desk with time to kill.
I did provide my rationale as to what a trump has done to weaken the alliance and evidence that he has contemplated leaving it, so not sure how that ignores the first paragraph.
Do you think Trump is treating our allies better than our enemies?
(01-15-2019 11:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, busy weekend and in the field, so limited time to engage.
In short, the list tanq provided are small potatoes that don’t come close to equalling the magnitude of weakening or disbanding NATO with regards to Russian ambitions.
Umm, "weakening or disbanding NATO"? How so? By asking that other members step up to the plate and honor their obligations? That sounds like strengthening it to me.
And haven't the left been the ones screaming incessantly that we need to cut defense? The only way for that to happen is for our allies to step up and take more of the burden off our shoulders.
Your last comment is a superb straw man, by the way.
ignore the first paragraph, mischaracterize the last, and ignore the fact that NATO has neither been weakened nor disbanded.
Sorry my rely can’t meet your standards. Just wanted to make sure you weren’t fretting too much with my absence. Trying to respond in between field tasks - not sitting at a desk with time to kill.
I did provide my rationale as to what a trump has done to weaken the alliance and evidence that he has contemplated leaving it, so not sure how that ignores the first paragraph.
Do you think Trump is treating our allies better than our enemies?
You mean, like treating Isreal better and Russia worse than Obama did? Yes, I think so. Or do you mean treating Saudi Arabia better and Iran worse? I guess I need your list of friends and enemies.
Contemplate is not an action. It certainly is not an action directed by Putin. "Donny, my next instruction is for you to contemplate".
I guess I missed your rationale. Could you repeat it for me?
If only we could find a video of the president telling a Russian he can be more flexible after the election. That would be the nail in Trump's coffin. it would prove he is a Russian toady.
(01-15-2019 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If only we could find a video of the president telling a Russian he can be more flexible after the election. That would be the nail in Trump's coffin. it would prove he is a Russian toady.
Are we talking about Flynn?
(01-15-2019 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If only we could find a video of the president telling a Russian he can be more flexible after the election. That would be the nail in Trump's coffin. it would prove he is a Russian toady.
Are we talking about Flynn?
Did Flynn say he could be more flexible after the election? If not, then this is not him.
But this does illustrate the inequality with which the left approaches this matter. Flynn speaks to a russian. suspicious. Obama promises a russian to be more flexible. Not suspicious at all.
Difference? party.
(01-15-2019 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Umm, "weakening or disbanding NATO"? How so? By asking that other members step up to the plate and honor their obligations? That sounds like strengthening it to me.
And haven't the left been the ones screaming incessantly that we need to cut defense? The only way for that to happen is for our allies to step up and take more of the burden off our shoulders.
Your last comment is a superb straw man, by the way.
ignore the first paragraph, mischaracterize the last, and ignore the fact that NATO has neither been weakened nor disbanded.
Sorry my rely can’t meet your standards. Just wanted to make sure you weren’t fretting too much with my absence. Trying to respond in between field tasks - not sitting at a desk with time to kill.
I did provide my rationale as to what a trump has done to weaken the alliance and evidence that he has contemplated leaving it, so not sure how that ignores the first paragraph.
Do you think Trump is treating our allies better than our enemies?
You mean, like treating Isreal better and Russia worse than Obama did? Yes, I think so. Or do you mean treating Saudi Arabia better and Iran worse? I guess I need your list of friends and enemies.
Contemplate is not an action. It certainly is not an action directed by Putin. "Donny, my next instruction is for you to contemplate".
I guess I missed your rationale. Could you repeat it for me?
He is *absolutely* treating Britain better than Obama. Doesnt take much from the active shitting Obama took on them in his eight years.
And Israel as well. Ditto the second sentence from the preceding paragraph here.
And he is treating Iran much worse. As he is Russia.
I dont understand the confusion from your perspective. Do you even understand the import of shipping Javelins to Ukraine? Small potatoes, really? I doubt you actually even understand the import of *just* this step. Ces le vi.....
I guess I need to add a fourth step:
d) Ignore any contrary facts and deem them 'small potatoes' --- I think we have all the dance steps in play now.
(01-15-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 01:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
Sorry, busy weekend and in the field, so limited time to engage.
In short, the list tanq provided are small potatoes that don’t come close to equalling the magnitude of weakening or disbanding NATO with regards to Russian ambitions.
Umm, "weakening or disbanding NATO"? How so? By asking that other members step up to the plate and honor their obligations? That sounds like strengthening it to me.
And haven't the left been the ones screaming incessantly that we need to cut defense? The only way for that to happen is for our allies to step up and take more of the burden off our shoulders.
Your last comment is a superb straw man, by the way.
No, not a straw man at all. It's reality. We cannot currently meet all our existing military commitments with current force levels. The resulting overwork, under-training, and under-maintenance led directly to collisions involving two state-of-the-art Navy destroyers. To resolve that situation, we must either cut back on commitments or increase forces. The only ways to cut back on commitments are 1) to have allies pick up some of them, or 2) to sit back and allow unacceptable risks to proliferate. So, reducing defense spending without our allies stepping up to the plate would risk even further risks.
If you can work through those facts to a different conclusion, you have the floor. The ball is in your court.
(01-15-2019 02:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 01:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bump
Sorry, busy weekend and in the field, so limited time to engage.
In short, the list tanq provided are small potatoes that don’t come close to equalling the magnitude of weakening or disbanding NATO with regards to Russian ambitions.
Umm, "weakening or disbanding NATO"? How so? By asking that other members step up to the plate and honor their obligations? That sounds like strengthening it to me.
And haven't the left been the ones screaming incessantly that we need to cut defense? The only way for that to happen is for our allies to step up and take more of the burden off our shoulders.
Your last comment is a superb straw man, by the way.
No, not a straw man at all. It's reality. We cannot currently meet all our existing military commitments with current force levels. The resulting overwork, under-training, and under-maintenance led directly to collisions involving two state-of-the-art Navy destroyers. To resolve that situation, we must either cut back on commitments or increase forces. The only ways to cut back on commitments are 1) to have allies pick up some of them, or 2) to sit back and allow unacceptable risks to proliferate. So, reducing defense spending without our allies stepping up to the plate would risk even further risks.
If you can work through those facts to a different conclusion, you have the floor. The ball is in your court.
or 3) recognize that the existence and continuance of some of these risks are due to our tentacles sometimes playing in places they shouldn't.
Sometimes the solution to threats is to not create them at all.
Quote:or 3) recognize that the existence and continuance of some of these risks are due to our tentacles sometimes playing in places they shouldn't.
Assume in arguendo some are 'due to our tentacles'; even given that you seemingly argue that we (as a sovereign nation / world power) should stick our heads in the sand once that has occurred? Kind of hard to reduce force requirements for a threat that, even if it were 'due to our own tentacles', is a very present issue.
Kind of like in lawsuits -- it doesnt matter who started it; that isnt the issue. If you start it, for the most part one *has* to be engaged with an active counterparty in the mix and has filed a countersuit. A unilateral retreat in the presence of such force would seem amazingly ill-advised. But that is just me....
So the 4 most obvious necessary need for force / force counters are:
1) Counterbalance on China / S. China Sea / 'Island buiilding' / Taiwan
2) Restraint on Russia
3) Restraint to Iranian expansionism
4) Maintenance of deterrence of Islamic fundamentalism from non-state actors
Which of those issues is 'due to our own tentacles'? Which would you advise walking away from?
And, to be blunt, the characterization of two of these as 'due to our own tentacles' while that might be in part true, would be a horribly myopic view of the situations that surrounded the reasons for such 'tentacles', tbh. The solution to not exercise those 'tentacles' in those instances (simply leave a situation alone, that is) would have been amazingly stupid, to be blunt, when one looks at the alternatives.
(01-15-2019 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:or 3) recognize that the existence and continuance of some of these risks are due to our tentacles sometimes playing in places they shouldn't.
Assume in arguendo some are 'due to our tentacles'; even given that you seemingly argue that we (as a sovereign nation / world power) should stick our heads in the sand once that has occurred? Kind of hard to reduce force requirements for a threat that, even if it were 'due to our own tentacles', is a very present issue.
Kind of like in lawsuits -- it doesnt matter who started it; that isnt the issue. If you start it, for the most part one *has* to be engaged with an active counterparty in the mix and has filed a countersuit. A unilateral retreat in the presence of such force would seem amazingly ill-advised. But that is just me....
So the 4 most obvious necessary need for force / force counters are:
1) Counterbalance on China / S. China Sea / 'Island buiilding' / Taiwan
2) Restraint on Russia
3) Restraint to Iranian expansionism
4) Maintenance of deterrence of Islamic fundamentalism from non-state actors
Which of those issues is 'due to our own tentacles'? Which would you advise walking away from?
And, to be blunt, the characterization of two of these as 'due to our own tentacles' while that might be in part true, would be a horribly myopic view of the situations that surrounded the reasons for such 'tentacles', tbh. The solution to not exercise those 'tentacles' in those instances (simply leave a situation alone, that is) would have been amazingly stupid, to be blunt, when one looks at the alternatives.
Am on an aircraft about to leave, so cant respond in detail right away.
But I'd focus on #3 and argue that 1. This was firmly our own doing and 2. By holding that line of thought, we've myopically sought to counter a threat at the risk of creating a much larger one. Saudi Arabia poses as much, if not a greater threat to regional and global stability as Iran. At some point a rationalization should be undertaken and a strategy of ongoing enablement of a despotic, psychotic regime be ended.
Another tentacle - Cuba. The threat is over. What are we doing with them? Creating yet another generation of people to dislike the United States. What would the downside be to leaving Cuba alone? They arent going to attack us and the communist threat from eons ago is non existent.
Some of these date far beyond Trump's tenure while some (Cuba) are re-instigated. The point still stands that sometimes the best course of action is to not keep stoking and propagating a threat while empowering a more subtle, yet dangerous one.
(01-15-2019 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:or 3) recognize that the existence and continuance of some of these risks are due to our tentacles sometimes playing in places they shouldn't.
Some are, some aren't. Considering Tanq's identification of the big 4, I'd argue that 4) is probably the one most resulting from backlash against our tentacles.
Quote:So the 4 most obvious necessary need for force / force counters are:
1) Counterbalance on China / S. China Sea / 'Island buiilding' / Taiwan
2) Restraint on Russia
3) Restraint to Iranian expansionism
4) Maintenance of deterrence of Islamic fundamentalism from non-state actors
I'd add one more:
5) Keeping world trade routes open.
That's the one we took on at Bretton Woods. We bribed the West: Since your economy and military are in shambles, we'll help you get back on your feet by giving you open access to our markets, without requiring reciprocation, and protecting your trade routes, and in return you'll fall in behind and follow our orders in the Cold War. The problem is that it worked so spectacularly that we won the Cold War, and nobody has figured out what to do in the 30 years since.
We need the other countries to take on more responsibility for trade protection. The anti-pirate campaign in the Arabian Sea can be a template. With the Royal Navy getting two new carriers, and India building new carriers and boomers, we could align with the Commonwealth to cover a lot of it.
As far as Russia, China, and Iran, I support a policy of 1) helping our allies maintain a balance of forces within the region and 2) containing any regional disputes within the region. Russia, China, and Iran are basically land powers without has the kind of blue-water navy and mobile army and air force to project power outside their regions--yet--and they may never get there. So keep them contained and make sure there is strong enough regional opposition to keep them from going nuts.
That leaves 4) and that's the one that scares me. I don't think we are anywhere near where we need to be to deal with them. One thing we can do is back off the micromanagement and hope that calms them down a bit. Another is really figure out what is the best way to defend ourselves from all sorts of nontraditional threats, and do it. On thing that Chuck Schumer has said that I agree with (hey, Joe Biden has said one thing I agree with, too) is that we need much larger special forces. My thought there would be to turn the Marines into our commando force, along the lines of the Royal Marines, only a lot bigger.
(01-15-2019 04:36 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]Another tentacle - Cuba. The threat is over. What are we doing with them? Creating yet another generation of people to dislike the United States. What would the downside be to leaving Cuba alone? They arent going to attack us and the communist threat from eons ago is non existent.
Funny, even with the Trump actions that tighten down travel and reimpose economic sanctions to a limited number of Cuban targets (i.e. the ones owned by the military), the state of US / Cuba relations is light years better than it was just 8 years ago.
But yes, the moves will hurt our relative relations there, and to some extent in Latin America, no doubt. But the original question dealt with the economies of the military presence of the United States -- not whether we hurt the tinpot feelings of Brother Raul, or degraded some of the ancillary relations with other Latin American nations.
To some extent I can agree with you that this is not really a productive 'negative stance to take'. But as to the question of military stances this is so completely off point as to really be more ascribed as a 'wouldnt it be nice if' statement.
I asked you 'what tentacles' the United States was 'guilty of' to provoke the military stances that seem to need to be cut back or curtailed. The answer of 'Cuba' to that question is more speculation than anything else.
Quote:Some of these date far beyond Trump's tenure while some (Cuba) are re-instigated. The point still stands that sometimes the best course of action is to not keep stoking and propagating a threat while empowering a more subtle, yet dangerous one.
I guess if your pure speculation about counting Cuba in the 'tentacles that need to be curtailed for current military stances' really counts as an answer, you would be correct. In my book, speculation doesnt count as an answer for that current based question.
As for 're-instigated', I take it that somehow you think the stance of the United States to Cuba from 1961 to the end of the Cold War and through the Fidel tenure was us 'instigating' a problem?
(01-15-2019 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 04:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:or 3) recognize that the existence and continuance of some of these risks are due to our tentacles sometimes playing in places they shouldn't.
Some are, some aren't. Considering Tanq's identification of the big 4, I'd argue that 4) is probably the one most resulting from backlash against our tentacles.
Quote:So the 4 most obvious necessary need for force / force counters are:
1) Counterbalance on China / S. China Sea / 'Island buiilding' / Taiwan
2) Restraint on Russia
3) Restraint to Iranian expansionism
4) Maintenance of deterrence of Islamic fundamentalism from non-state actors
I'd add one more:
5) Keeping world trade routes open.
That's the one we took on at Bretton Woods. We bribed the West: Since your economy and military are in shambles, we'll help you get back on your feet by giving you open access to our markets, without requiring reciprocation, and protecting your trade routes, and in return you'll fall in behind and follow our orders in the Cold War. The problem is that it worked so spectacularly that we won the Cold War, and nobody has figured out what to do in the 30 years since.
We need the other countries to take on more responsibility for trade protection. The anti-pirate campaign in the Arabian Sea can be a template. With the Royal Navy getting two new carriers, and India building new carriers and boomers, we could align with the Commonwealth to cover a lot of it.
As far as Russia, China, and Iran, I support a policy of 1) helping our allies maintain a balance of forces within the region and 2) containing any regional disputes within the region. Russia, China, and Iran are basically land powers without has the kind of blue-water navy and mobile army and air force to project power outside their regions--yet--and they may never get there. So keep them contained and make sure there is strong enough regional opposition to keep them from going nuts.
That leaves 4) and that's the one that scares me. I don't think we are anywhere near where we need to be to deal with them. One thing we can do is back off the micromanagement and hope that calms them down a bit. Another is really figure out what is the best way to defend ourselves from all sorts of nontraditional threats, and do it. On thing that Chuck Schumer has said that I agree with (hey, Joe Biden has said one thing I agree with, too) is that we need much larger special forces. My thought there would be to turn the Marines into our commando force, along the lines of the Royal Marines, only a lot bigger.
I would say your Bretton Woods concept is dead on.
And I would say my #1 runs straight into it as a potential conflict; and to a lesser extent my #3.
(01-15-2019 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:So the 4 most obvious necessary need for force / force counters are:
1) Counterbalance on China / S. China Sea / 'Island buiilding' / Taiwan
2) Restraint on Russia
3) Restraint to Iranian expansionism
4) Maintenance of deterrence of Islamic fundamentalism from non-state actors
I'd add one more:
5) Keeping world trade routes open.
That's the one we took on at Bretton Woods. We bribed the West: Since your economy and military are in shambles, we'll help you get back on your feet by giving you open access to our markets, without requiring reciprocation, and protecting your trade routes, and in return you'll fall in behind and follow our orders in the Cold War. The problem is that it worked so spectacularly that we won the Cold War, and nobody has figured out what to do in the 30 years since.
The victory of the West in the "long twilight struggle" of the Cold War is one of the greatest and most salutary achievements in modern history. The Free World faced down and, in a relatively short (on the historical scale) time and with remarkably little violence, caused the collapse of the most vast and murderous tyranny mankind has ever seen.
It makes me laugh, or cringe, or something, when know-nothings fail to understand that, or rootless relativists wax cynical about it. Yet such people are our present class of politicians, and their admirers are our voters.
(01-15-2019 10:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]It makes me laugh, or cringe, or something, when know-nothings fail to understand that, or rootless relativists wax cynical about it. Yet such people are our present class of politicians, and their admirers are our voters.
And it should make one laugh and cringe if that is the mental state of existence that is touted as the sole path forward. Even before the cold war, the allied survival and victory in the Second World War was "one of the greatest and most salutary achievements in modern history". Yet one of the key cogs in this victory, Sir Winston Churchill was rapidly replaced after the war; much like Chamberlain wasn't the right man for war, Churchill's rhetoric and stance wasn't pragmatic for a post war situation.
Despite your criticism, "relativists", by vocabulary definition, have a sense of perspective. No perspective and sticking to one strategy that happened to work at a time and a place, and using it carte blanche for everything else is far worse in my mind.
(01-16-2019 09:11 AM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 10:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]It makes me laugh, or cringe, or something, when know-nothings fail to understand that, or rootless relativists wax cynical about it. Yet such people are our present class of politicians, and their admirers are our voters.
And it should make one laugh and cringe if that is the mental state of existence that is touted as the sole path forward. Even before the cold war, the allied survival and victory in the Second World War was "one of the greatest and most salutary achievements in modern history". Yet one of the key cogs in this victory, Sir Winston Churchill was rapidly replaced after the war; much like Chamberlain wasn't the right man for war, Churchill's rhetoric and stance wasn't pragmatic for a post war situation.
Despite your criticism, "relativists", by vocabulary definition, have a sense of perspective. No perspective and sticking to one strategy that happened to work at a time and a place, and using it carte blanche for everything else is far worse in my mind.
You certainly jumped on a lot of positions that I never took. Yikes!
(01-16-2019 09:11 AM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2019 10:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]It makes me laugh, or cringe, or something, when know-nothings fail to understand that, or rootless relativists wax cynical about it. Yet such people are our present class of politicians, and their admirers are our voters.
And it should make one laugh and cringe if that is the mental state of existence that is touted as the sole path forward. Even before the cold war, the allied survival and victory in the Second World War was "one of the greatest and most salutary achievements in modern history". Yet one of the key cogs in this victory, Sir Winston Churchill was rapidly replaced after the war; much like Chamberlain wasn't the right man for war, Churchill's rhetoric and stance wasn't pragmatic for a post war situation.
Despite your criticism, "relativists", by vocabulary definition, have a sense of perspective. No perspective and sticking to one strategy that happened to work at a time and a place, and using it carte blanche for everything else is far worse in my mind.
I think this is something we have been very slow to learn. We needed a new paradigm after the Berlin wall fell, but we didn't come up with one. We no longer needed Europe and Japan not to turn communist, and we could really no longer afford our side of the Bretton Woods bribe. But we kept the same Cold War attitude, we just softened our stance toward Russia and China a bit.
On the republican side, the neocons were the ultimate Cold Warriors, but they kept nominating them (and electing some of them). On the democrat side, I'm not quite sure how to describe it, perhaps a continuation of being the same kinder and gentler Cold Warriors that they tried to be during the Cold War. Trump is really the first guy to challenge the Cold War paradigm. I think he goes a bit too far with his America first nationalism, but I'm not certain whether he is more driving events or events are more driving him.
I think we need to retreat somewhat from our world policeman role, but I think we can do that only as our allies pick up more of the slack. With respect to the three major hotspots and the wanna-be hegemons--Russia in eastern Europe, Iran in the mideast, and China in Asia--I think our best approach is to support our allies to a level that preserves stalemate, and work to contain any regional disputes within the region. All three of those potential hegemonies are basically land powers, so far without the ability to project military power afar. China in particular is projecting power economically across the world, without a soldier firing a shot, and I think we really need to put more emphasis on countering that kind of effort. But as long as we are focused so exclusively on the middle east, I question how much we can do.
Interestingly, China is almost totally dependent on mideast oil, and almost totally dependent on our navy to keep their supply chain open. They are de facto huge beneficiaries of our Cold War policies. Until somebody figures out how to run a pipeline through the Himalayas, they get that oil by sea, and their navy can't protect that route. A bunch of pirates in Indonesia could plunge China into depression and famine in fairly short order.
Buzzfeed reporting that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress regarding the Trump tower Russia deal. This seems to have pushed many Dems over the line and they are now publicly calling for impeachment.
In the AG hearings, Klobuchar hit this alleged nail on the head. Barr clearly states that the President pressuring a witness to lie to Congress would be considered obstruction of justice.
https://twitter.com/maddowblog/status/10...09057?s=21
Lindsay Graham also asked the same thing (no video immediately available for those questions).