Surrender Summit II: Putin Invited to Washington

[Quintillus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6e88ae760d8_story.html?utm_term=.ad119bcfd519

Seems like a special enough occasion to justify its own thread, given that the Helsinki summit has not settled yet. What a week, right? We've had:

Monday: "I don't know why it would be Russia"
Tuesday: "Oops, I meant, I don't know why it wouldn't be Russia"
Tuesday: "Could be other people also"
Wednesday: "No" when asked whether Russia was still interfering in the U.S.
Thursday: Let's invite Putin to Washington!

And no one knows what was said in Helsinki, either. Sounds an awful lots like collusion if you ask me.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm sure Putin will bring a cigar to the Oval Office for his next private time with his intern.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wouldn't this be more like "surrender valley"? Things certainly seem to be headed downhill.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Surrender Hole!

 

[Berzerker]

Nixon goes to China and he's a statesman

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nixon goes to China and he's a statesman

That's because when he went to China he performed the job of a statesman. Trump met with Putin at the end of the least statesmanlike tour a US president has ever conducted.

But of course putting forth an absurd false equivalence is exactly what you are known for so things around here are running totally true to form, you scumbag [deleted] troll.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Quintillus]

Nixon went to China, but as far as I'm aware China was never suspected of having anything to do with Watergate. Watergate was purely Nixon and his cronies' own corruption, without foreign influence playing a part.

 

[Berzerker]

That's because when he went to China he performed the job of a statesman. Trump met with Putin at the end of the least statesmanlike tour a US president has ever conducted.

But of course putting forth an absurd false equivalence is exactly what you are known for so things around here are running totally true to form, you scumbag [deleted] troll.

Were you calling Nixon a statesman back then?

 

[JollyRoger]

Nixon goes to China and he's a statesman

Were you calling Nixon a statesman back then?

Would[n't]

 

[Berzerker]

Nixon interfered with the peace talks to end the Vietnam War so he could get elected and millions died as a result, but he's a statesman for opening up China. If Trump's efforts open up Russia without bloodshed, wont history be more kind to him?

 

[JollyRoger]

That's a pretty big if given Trump's first submission. Maybe he will bring us peace in our time though.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Were you calling Nixon a statesman back then?

I was, and I was old enough to vote. Opening China to western influence was a big deal and appropriate.

 

[Dachs]

Nixon interfered with the peace talks to end the Vietnam War so he could get elected and millions died as a result, but he's a statesman for opening up China. If Trump's efforts open up Russia without bloodshed, wont history be more kind to him?

What would "open up Russia" even mean? American companies do business there. American tourists visit. It's not exactly a Hermit Kingdom.

 

[Berzerker]

Opening China to western influence was a big deal and appropriate.

According to some of our Russian posters NATO and the west have been encroaching upon Russia's sphere of influence and thats why Putin went into Crimea and Ukraine....and apparently thats why Putin meddled in our election, Trump was preferable to Hillary.

What would "open up Russia" even mean? American companies do business there. American tourists visit. It's not exactly a Hermit Kingdom.

It means reducing tension so Russia doesn't feel the need to mess with the neighborhood.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Nixon interfered with the peace talks to end the Vietnam War so he could get elected and millions died as a result, but he's a statesman for opening up China. If Trump's efforts open up Russia without bloodshed, wont history be more kind to him?

I though Republicans were against "appeasement" ?
Anyway bonespurs is the greatest president, grater then even Lincoln already. Having won six trade wars, denuclearized North Korea and brought back lots of agricultural jobs

According to some of our Russian posters NATO and the west have been encroaching upon Russia's sphere of influence and thats why Putin went into Crimea and Ukraine....and apparently thats why Putin meddled in our election, Trump was preferable to Hillary. It means reducing tension so Russia doesn't feel the need to mess with the neighborhood.

Sure I can see that perspective, except why is Trump gaslighting all our traditional western allies ? While starting up multiple trade wars at the same time ? While tearing down all US created international institutions design to benefit the US ?
Dosnt even make sense if the US strategy was Detente with Russia.

 

[Kyriakos]

Mr Putin goes to Washington

 

[Perfection]

Our Director of National Intelligence

 

[Berzerker]

Sure I can see that perspective, except why is Trump gaslighting all our traditional western allies ? While starting up multiple trade wars at the same time ? While tearing down all US created international institutions design to benefit the US ?
Dosnt even make sense if the US strategy was Detente with Russia.

1) Because he wants them to shoulder more of the burden 2) To renegotiate trade deals 3) If NATO is a problem for Detente, then it needs redefining

 

[FriendlyFire]

1) Because he wants them to shoulder more of the burden 2) To renegotiate trade deals 3) If NATO is a problem for Detente, then it needs redefining

1) Gas lighting, tarriffs threats and calling allies cheaters is the best strategy to get them to spend more on their military ?
2) Getting out the TPP and then Starting six trade wars against most of the world at the same time is a smart strategy ? The US can do it alone by itself taking on China ?
3) So Appeasement, removing sanctions and covering up for Russia is a smart strategy ? while attacking NATO and the WTO and NAFTA ? All created by the US to benefit the US ?

 

[Hrothbern]

1) Because he wants them to shoulder more of the burden 2) To renegotiate trade deals 3) If NATO is a problem for Detente, then it needs redefining

Would be nice to know what arguments Obama used at high level confidentiality about increasing EU defense spending to for example "buddy" Angela Merkel.
It resulted anyway in 2014 to the agreement to increase defense spending over 10 years time to 2%. Whereby noted that doing that in 5 years or so would simply not be cost effective.
=> his analysis and arguments were taken seriously.

But as Obama has not yet stated those arguments in public, and I guess will not do in full for the foreseeable future... we can only guess.
The main argument used by Merkel against Trump was that he was exaggerating the situation, and she said that the EU was clearly supporting peace missions of the UN accross the world.
NOT hit and run military campaigns leaving a mess, whereby involved top level US generals propose huge amounts of money to "normalise" the economy and stability of a country after the military campaign... and are ignored !
But doing peace and humanitarian (UN) interventions that can be executed from A to Z.
Whereby noted that population growth (Africa), religious polarising, climate changes, populist authoritarian leaders on the rise, are all factors increasing the number of conflicts, the amount of human misery.

I think the position of Obama was much more alligned with the NATO allies for such UN supported actions, with special geopolitical actions for the US on top.
THIS is where Trump is going a new direction: he does not want the UN as supranational legitimation (and restriction).