JediKnight

I'm sure your mother is proud of you.

Mikeyavelli

Yep, she's a Republican.

PeterS

Good god man, how big an asshole do you need to pull that bulls**t out of it! The only thing relevant is Ukraine and the only thing approved is a 47 million in sniper rifles and even those are left sitting waiting on payment. Anyone can look tuff if the caveat is money that Trump knew they didn't have! And Trump can DEMAND all he wants but the only investigation going on is the one into his sorry ass!!! I love how you left out that Trump refused to implement further penalties against Russia that HIS congress had already approved.

>>snip<<

The change is not as earth-shattering as some reports and announcements on Twitter might make it.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev
December 21, 2017

When the notifications started arriving, breathlessly announcing that the United States would be providing lethal assistance to Ukraine’s military, I assumed that a major shift in U.S. policy had taken place. As I began to parse the reporting more closely, it became clear that matters aren’t quite so clear.

It appears that, after months of the necessary paperwork sitting in the president’s inbox, Donald Trump signed off on a decision that will permit the State Department to issue the necessary export licenses to allow the sale of sniper rifles for use by the Ukrainian armed forces. This does represent a shift from the Obama administration’s policy of not allowing Ukraine to obtain U.S. firearms, and limiting the provision of U.S. military assistance to foodstuffs and technical equipment, but is not as earth-shattering as some reports and announcements on Twitter might make it.

For one thing, export licenses for much of the “heavier” equipment requested by Ukraine, starting with the Javelin antitank missile system, have still not been approved. More importantly, while the president has signed off on the licensing for the sniper systems, how Ukraine will pay for the weapons is still, so far, undetermined. In keeping with Trump’s passive-aggressive approach to Russia policy, he might have decided not to continue to expend political capital, especially with members of Congress, by “blocking” sales that both houses have approved—but may very well insist that Ukraine pay for any U.S. equipment. Trump may question why the U.S. taxpayer should foot the bill when Ukraine remains the world’s eleventh-largest arms exporter—and where Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko has initialed plans for Ukrainian defense firms to vault Ukraine into the “top five” of global arms providers.

So there are still gaps between approving export licenses—and actual crates of weapons arriving in Ukraine. Is Trump attempting a satisfying decision—that is, approving export licenses for some lethal equipment to be sold to Ukraine, if the payments can be arranged—but declining to move on systems like the Javelins, in order to demonstrate that, unlike Barack Obama, he has provided some weaponry to Ukraine, but not the types that would potentially be major game changers and lead to Russian escalation? We have already seen this approach in the Jerusalem decision—moving ahead to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city, also in fulfillment of legislation passed by Congress—but delaying the actual move of any U.S. embassy facilities from Tel Aviv. Is Trump’s gamble that limited arms sales to Ukraine would establish his bona fides with a bipartisan national-security establishment that still remains suspicious of his Russia agenda, while not writing off completely his stated desire to try and pursue “deals” with Russia? Is it designed to give him more leeway with regards to imposing the next set of sanctions that Congress has mandated?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"When the notifications started arriving, breathlessly announcing that the United States would be providing lethal assistance to Ukraine’s military, I assumed that a major shift in U.S. policy had taken place. As I began to parse the reporting more closely, it became clear that matters aren’t quite so clear." - PeterS

Is Syria another Libya in the making as a result of US foreign policy?
BTW:
Then there was Ukraine also:
"fuck the EU"; A quote from Victoria Nuland, wife of PNAC Neocon, Robert Kagan at 5 Min 30 seconds
Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told
https://youtu.be/fWkfpGCAAuw
Ignoring the content of the videos is not a response.

Ever wonder why Americans are being directed to stand beside ISIS and other foreign mercenaries in Syria?
This covers the MSM's BS most concisely:
The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told
https://youtu.be/dkamZg68jpk
The deception worked the first time, so it keeps getting replayed.

The rise of ISIS, explained in 6 minutes
https://youtu.be/pzmO6RWy1v8

trucksterbud

Russia isn't the enemy ya putz..... America has become its own worst enemy.... and Putin / Moscow are most likely fed up, which is why they have invented a new generation of weapon, mach 7 sub launched missles that are so fast they strike the target before anti-missle shields can go up....

As Putin said in his interview with Megan Kelly, if you have proof of Russian meddling, send it.... Hollering and yelling in Congress IS NOT PROOF....

Keep in mind here.....putz.....its not a good idea to provoke a bear.....

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Who could have ever predicted that a Christian would be leading Russia, while America was being led by a Muslim?
Not me for sure.
Putin jailed and kicked out the Oligarchs that installed the Bolsheviks in 1917.
We still have ours calling the shots.

Mikeyavelli

👍👍👍

Lonewolf

i still have a t-shirt i wore in East Germany right after the wall went down it shows the Marine Corps bulldog pissing on the Russian bear I still feel the same and trump should too but Putin bought him

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Lonewolf just couldn't hep it.
He had to proclaim his ignorance.

Here is a refresher from the past BS from our MSM's coverage of Syria:
General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years
https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw

The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told
https://youtu.be/dkamZg68jpk
Why in the Hell would have Assad gassed his own people?
Assad would have to be an i***t. NO motive!!!
It gave the US/CFR foreign policy an excuse to support ISIS and other foreign mercenaries. Those trying to take over Syria.
Who needed another Libya fiasco? ISIS did. That’s who.
The Covert Origins of ISIS
Americans better figure this out in time. Who will pay attention to covert US foreign policy and share?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI&feature=player_detailpage
Turning a blind eye to the False F**g in 2013; has invited more of the same.

Lonewolf