More About Taliban Bounties

[Ronson]

An NYT article that is actually worth reading. It gives some perspective to the whole mess. (sorry about posting the whole thing, but it would otherwise be behind a paywall)

[seanD]

It's pretty simple logic. Last week, Trump was planning to pull out half the troops via successful peace talks with the Taliban, then all of a sudden the story about Russian bounties breaks the new headlines.

Cui bono? Russia -- who wants US troops that are less than 2,000 kilometers from their border to leave? US military industrial complex -- that for some reason wants US troops to stay forever?

It's just simple logic.

[Whateverman]

I don't think this adds any useful context to the scandal here in the US.

No one doubts that the US is covertly wounding Russia (election interference, hacking, economic sanctions, providing support to anti-Russian forces, etc). Of course Russia wants payback.

That doesn't change or otherwise impact the fact of the so-called commander-in-chief's apparent dereliction of duty.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think this adds any useful context to the scandal here in the US.

No one doubts that the US is covertly wounding Russia (election interference, hacking, economic sanctions, providing support to anti-Russian forces, etc). Of course Russia wants payback.

That doesn't change or otherwise impact the fact of the so-called commander-in-chief's apparent dereliction of duty.

Ya know, calling something a scandal doesn't make it a scandal.

[Ronson]

I don't think this adds any useful context to the scandal here in the US.

No one doubts that the US is covertly wounding Russia (election interference, hacking, economic sanctions, providing support to anti-Russian forces, etc). Of course Russia wants payback.

That doesn't change or otherwise impact the fact of the so-called commander-in-chief's apparent dereliction of duty.

"so-called". That's a giveaway. No more "Drumpf"?

This is just a companion article to the other thread, which has gotten huge and dominated by a troll. I think this does give some perspective on the broader situation.

[Ronson]

It's pretty simple logic. Last week, Trump was planning to pull out half the troops via successful peace talks with the Taliban, then all of a sudden the story about Russian bounties breaks the new headlines.

Cui bono? Russia -- who wants US troops that are less than 2,000 kilometers from their border to leave? US military industrial complex -- that for some reason wants US troops to stay forever?

It's just simple logic.

That explains NYT's motivations, or at least the leakers.

[seanD]

That explains NYT's motivations, or at least the leakers.

Isn't it funny how none of the intelligence has been solidified by anyone (in spite of the fact both political sides are using it as a political football against each other). I mean, this looks more like a disruption of the Taliban peace process by US intelligence sources that don't want troops to leave than I've ever seen. The timing of it speaks for itself.

[Whateverman]

"so-called". That's a giveaway. No more "Drumpf"?

I thought about it, but nah...

This is just a companion article to the other thread, which has gotten huge and dominated by a troll. I think this does give some perspective on the broader situation.

Well, it certainly provides more information, but I'd argue that the information is something most people (who've spent a little time trying to understand the relations between the two countries) would have assumed to be true.

Not gonna argue about it, though. If you think that's useful context/information, then so be it.

[Ronson]

Isn't it funny how none of the intelligence has been solidified by anyone (in spite of the fact both political sides are using it as a political football against each other). I mean, this looks more like a disruption of the Taliban peace process by US intelligence sources that don't want troops to leave than I've ever seen. The timing of it speaks for itself.

IMO, the bounties never happened. I don't dispute Russia funneling money to the Taliban - and they openly admit that much - and the Taliban admit that much. But both deny the bounties (in fact, Taliban spokesmen sounded angry about the allegation).

So yes, when looking for motivations the lens is clearer. Does Russia want U.S. troops active in a region it feels is in its sphere of influence? No. Does Russia want fighting going on next to the Muslim former-Soviet countries? Where it can spill over into those territories? No. Imagine if Muslim revolts started taking place in Kazakhstan. So it runs opposite of their security concerns to prolong the fighting in Afghanistan.

But there is a strong warmongering "military industrial complex" in the U.S that people like John Bolton, Hillary and Lindsey Graham embrace.

[seanD]

IMO, the bounties never happened. I don't dispute Russia funneling money to the Taliban - and they openly admit that much - and the Taliban admit that much. But both deny the bounties (in fact, Taliban spokesmen sounded angry about the allegation).

So yes, when looking for motivations the lens is clearer. Does Russia want U.S. troops active in a region it feels is in its sphere of influence? No. Does Russia want fighting going on next to the Muslim former-Soviet countries? Where it can spill over into those territories? No. Imagine if Muslim revolts started taking place in Kazakhstan. So it runs opposite of their security concerns to prolong the fighting in Afghanistan.

But there is a strong warmongering "military industrial complex" in the U.S that people like John Bolton, Hillary and Lindsey Graham embrace.

And sad thing is, now if Trump wants to pull troops out of a country, just because it's Trump, liberals do MIC's bidding of opposing it. Talk about useful idiots.

[Ronson]

And sad thing is, now if Trump wants to pull troops out of a country, just because it's Trump, liberals do MIC's bidding of opposing it. Talk about useful idiots.

I tried to "amen" your post and hit the alarm button by mistake. I hope I backed out fast enough.

[seanD]

I tried to "amen" your post and hit the alarm button by mistake. I hope I backed out fast enough.

I had it coming sooner or later.

[Mountain Man]

scandal

Y'all keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Cow Poke]

IMO, the bounties never happened. ....

I don't know if they did or not. But the US pays bounties, too. BIG ones. It's part of war, and we've been in proxy wars with Russia and/or the Soviet Union for how long, now?

It's kinda like "they're gonna kill our troops" but the bounties make them kill our troops deader?

I think the liberals are REALLY underestimating our guys in the field - "heads on a swivel".

ETA: The only difference between the bounties we pay and the bounties others may pay against us - we call ours "rewards".

[Mountain Man]

It's kinda like "they're gonna kill our troops" but the bounties make them kill our troops deader?

Yeah, the cry from liberals is "Trump should have warned our troops!"

Warned them about what, that somebody in a war zone might try to kill? I think they might already know that.