Good post and quite valid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Hanley
But the player here that is not being focused on is the Kremlin...
. . .
My view of the Kremlin's goals (in a region that is as close to it as Mexico and Guatemala are to us) is that the neo-FSB patriots aim to take over 60% to 70% of the world's oil supplies by 2015. Barring that, they aim to destroy it or stir the pot to ensure regular price increases in order to raise the wounded bear back up on its feet.
I'd suggest only two caveats. Putin visited Iran and he talked a lot -- but he didn't really say anything. They got no promises from him... :wry:
Also note that your stated presumed goal of oil supply control is probably true but we, China and India may have other ideas.
As they say, "the other guy gets a vote." :cool:
I try to do that. Still alive so I must be doing fairly well at it.
I'm aware of the facts in your first paragraph but I suggest what he did say gives a clue to what he did not say. We'll see.
Agree that we are not being clever on world strategy; I think we got tunnel vision and are just now starting to realize that. Probably some in high places in DC still haven't realized it. :mad:
The war isn't weakening us all that much though it certainly isn't strengthening us. Only concern to me is that someone will over estimate the weakening effect... :wry:
I totally agree with your last paragraph and spent a lot of the early 90s fulminating about the errors of Bush 41 and Clinton in trying to be clever and in the process, alienating Russia. Dumbb -- With two 'b's...
We live in interesting times... :D
I think your first paragraph answers itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattC86
In regards to Russia, I think the errors are at least partly understandable given that our Big Enemy of fifty years had suddenly disintegrated. Clinton's foreign relations people were groping for a new US strategic concept for their entire eight years in office.
Additionally, I'm not sure exactly how befriending an authoritarian, corrupt oligarchy is in our interests - or are you saying better relations with Russia in the early-to-mid-90s would have prevented Russia's slipping to it's position today?
Matt
I agree they were groping -- so was Bush 41 -- and it was a whole new world. Further, the lack of direction was fed by a lack of intelligence (apparently). Those understandable things were compounded by a lack of vision and the old American ego; "Nana-nana nana -- we won!"
It would have been in our interest to help because that may have precluded the oligarchy turning into government by KGB. They needed money, we waste more money in a week than it would have taken to buy some of their stuff (all sorts, including oil), like AN 74s for which we could find a good use. Stuff for other people. ;)
That may or may not have changed things for the future but the condescension and arrogance we showed wasn't helpful. We do that way too often and it never helps, usually does a lot of harm. :mad:
We're still good at that; saw last week where in the messages we sent to Poland and The Czech Republic re: antimissile stuff, we provided responses that they only need to sign and return-- which caused both nations to go into the diplomatic stall mode. Rightly so. That isn't just arrogant, it's stupid.
You can kick a dog just so many times and sooner or later it's going to turn around and bite you -- and Nations aren't as tolerant as dogs...
Ver-ree stealthily... Or one goes to the bazaris
and gets a rubber stamp made, buys some odd paper and sets up shop... :D
This geriatric abuse has gotta stop!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stan
Actually, the days of the rubber stamp are older than Christ when he was just a Corporal (in the Army, Nichols ;) )
Just because I'm the only one here whose clothing record documents the issue of a "Fig Leaf, Winter Service, Green"... ;)
Quote:
The application approval process is at best arduous and no one individual can rubber stamp you to the USA. The 'foils' that are printed are a royal pain in the Alpha to handle, and are so sensitive they often tear when applying them.
Heh. Even as long ago as when I was in Tehran the common complaint from the Iraniha who applied was that they could get a UK Visa in three days with two signatures and a US Visa took weeks and four signatures. Bureaucracy r us.:D
Sorry to be a bit late here.
My days in the caucasus are barely over. Just shut down end of 2005. And I had an excellent girlfriend who was a Russian homicide cop for a while there. :) Who was pumping whom, and for what? Now that is a question. :D
What I'm telling you about corruption and visas is my experience based on pricing I acquired in the FSU. Now I hung with some interesting folks at times, but I ain't making it up. It's not my job to report that kind of stuff, and yes, I know how much of a battle it is to get anyone at the embassy to listen. We Americans want red hot proof and unequivocal evidence. All very tiresome and dangerous as hell to someone in country and to those who remain behind. We Americans are experts in bureaucratic form over substance these days. It's a problem and it's a weakness that most definitely is exploited. Just because 4 signatures are required doesn't mean that each signatory examines them for accuracy better. Come, come. You all are in the military bureaucracy. Never gotten a signature on something your boss didn't read through? ;)
My recommendation is to make it a single signature system. Why? Because that narrows responsibility down to one person who is on the hook for it. That means that audit can sample visas and go over them with a fine tooth comb. The more signatures you put on a paper, the more it spreads the blame.
The vast majority of those acquiring visas this way are just ordinary folks, no better or worse than anyone else wanting "to get out of fookin' Rocciya". It's a low priority on my stack. Very low.
Maybe I should hang out a shingle? "Corruption Specialist"
Not a problem, there is life beyond the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Hanley
...
Come, come. You all are in the military bureaucracy. Never gotten a signature on something your boss didn't read through? ;)
Actually we're all retired. Can't speak for the others but for me the answer to your question is no -- not because I'm Joe Straight Arrow but because that kind of stupidity almost always gets caught so it's a waste of effort and I'm lazy. And State is far more bureaucratic than the Army...:rolleyes:
Quote:
My recommendation is to make it a single signature system. Why? Because that narrows responsibility down to one person who is on the hook for it. That means that audit can sample visas and go over them with a fine tooth comb. The more signatures you put on a paper, the more it spreads the blame.
Good plan. If you aren't into reporting stuff but are convinced there's a weakness and care enough to mention it, you could always write about it on a weblog.
Quote:
The vast majority of those acquiring visas this way are just ordinary folks, no better or worse than anyone else wanting "to get out of fookin' Rocciya". It's a low priority on my stack. Very low
Yeah, I have low priority stuff also. Rarely mention it at all. :cool:
Quote:
Maybe I should hang out a shingle? "Corruption Specialist"
I dunno. What with all the debates about scientific ethics nowadays that might not be a good plan. :D
An example of what I really care about.
I got reports from Tbilisi that the Iranians were buying up nice looking white boy orphans from orphanages there. All between 5 and 7 years of age in good health. Now, you might ask why I would care about that?
Take a look at the history of the Janissaries. Those boys are almost certainly being trained in Iran as we speak to become highly trained, smart terrorist weapons against the West. They will be taught to speak American English, they will be taught how to act and dress and they will be filled with a great purpose and turned loose. That, I think matters.
It does matter. A great deal.
ahhh, now it makes sense!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Hanley
I got reports from Tbilisi that the Iranians were buying up nice looking white boy orphans from orphanages there. All between 5 and 7 years of age in good health. Now, you might ask why I would care about that?
Take a look at the history of the Janissaries. Those boys are almost certainly being trained in Iran as we speak to become highly trained, smart terrorist weapons against the West. They will be taught to speak American English, they will be taught how to act and dress and they will be filled with a great purpose and turned loose. That, I think matters.
Personally, I think all those alleged US visas are being bought by Iranian agents for kidnapped Georgian orphans--who are even now being trained by the MOIS and the IRGC to infiltrate University of Chicago Press and various graduate anthropology programs, with the ultimate aim of creating havoc in the future development of US military doctrine by insisting that field manuals adhere to academic citation standards.
I propose Stan be dispatched with a bevy of biker chicks to sort this all out.
(How's that for pulling together all the threads?)
Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with Ted.