DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 15562--------------------------------------------------
Bamboozled and Betrayed, Deceived and Duped
DIR By: Kerry
Date: July 19, 2017, 7:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let me start with China which is probably the worst offender in
how they deceived President Trump. When he met President Xi,
it appears Xi charmed him so much, Trump believed almost
everything he was told.
Prior to that meeting, Trump had accused China of manipulating
its currency. On that, I think he was mistaken; and he was
correct to change course. But when asked about it, he said,
""Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are
working with us on the North Korean problem. "We will see what
happens!" In his mind, if this statement reflects what he
really believed at the time, it meant he was willing to
tolerate their currency manipulation if they helped him with
North Korea. If that's the case, he was trying to make a deal
-- and it went poorly, very poorly. China's trade with North
Korea went up despite the UN sanctions and Xi's agreement with
Trump. Fox News
HTML http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/13/chinese-trade-with-north-korea-jumped-more-than-10-percent-in-first-half-year-official-says.html?ICID=ref_fark<br
/>reported July 13, 2017:
official says
Published July 13, 2017 Fox News
NOW PLAYING
What are next steps in addressing North Korea?
Close
China’s trade with sanctions-riddled North Korea increased more
than 10 percent in the first half of the year from last year, a
Chinese official said Wednesday.
China’s customs spokesman Huang Songping said China’s trade with
North Korea rose by 10.5 percent to $2.55 billion in the first
six months of 2017. While imports from North Korea dropped 13.2
percent to $880 million in the period, exports to North Korea
rose 29.1 percent to $1.67 billion, Huang said.
"As neighbors, China and North Korea maintain normal business
and trade exchanges," he said.
Huang also said the exports were driven by textile products and
other traditional goods not on the U.N. embargo list.
Being its largest ally, Beijing has been under pressure from the
U.S. to do more to rein in North Korea, according to Reuters.
President Trump denounced China’s trade with North Korea last
week, saying it grew almost 40 percent in the first quarter and
questioned how much it was doing to help counter the growing
threat from Pyongyang.
While China has contended it is doing nothing wrong by
continuing normal trade operations with the isolated regime,
U.S. is reportedly preparing to go after Chinese banks accused
of funneling cash to North Korea.
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that recent
unsealed court filings show that the White House is ready to
constrict cash flow to North Korea. The Justice Department
pointed to “offshore U.S. dollar accounts” associated with a
handful of companies linked to Chinese national Chi Yungpeng.
The Justice Department said the Chi’s network hid transactions
which helped fund North Korea’s military and arms programs, the
newspaper reported. While the network is not under U.S.
sanctions, analysts believe can be cutoff the same way a
separate Chinese firm last year.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is also said to be preparing to unilaterally
tighten sanctions on North Korea.
The U.S. circulated a draft resolution that would impose new
sanctions on North Korea following its first test of an
intercontinental ballistic missile, two U.N. diplomats told the
Associated Press on Monday.
The resolution has been circulated to China, as well as the
three other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council –
Russia, Britain and France, the diplomats said.
Can you believe Chinese exports to North Korea could rise so
much if all they were exporting was textiles and other
traditional goods not on the sanctions list? Why such an
increase? Did other countries which still trade with North
Korea stop sending them goods that they would be allowed to
without violating the UN sanctions? Why would North Korea
suddenly experience such a rise in demand for these goods? And
where did all the money come from for this additional spending?
This looks to me as Chinese exporters were shipping things under
false labels, and it seems reasonable to think it just might
have something to do with military projects. If you think you
need to spend on the military to survive, you may deplete your
currency reserves through additional spending on imports.
Why too would North Korean exports to China take such a dive?
This is another stress on North Korea's economy, decreasing
their currency reserves. The only explanation I can come up
with is that they're stopped producing some goods for export to
China and moved workers into their "industrial military
complex."
Trump was disappointed, to be sure. He spun it on June 20, 2017
on Twitter
HTML https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/877234140483121152:
While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China
to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know
China tried!
Can he really believe this? China is behaving very aggressive
lately. I think it poses a higher threat to world security
than Russia or ISIS. Yet Trump and his administration seems
not to see the signs.
What is the US doing about China's building a road in Bhutan
HTML http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/asia/india-china-border-standoff/index.html<br
/>without the permission of the Bhutan government? The
situation
is tense, with China threatening to use military force against
India which sides with Bhutan.
Does China really need a military base in Africa? They're
opening one. The US objected but it's still happening. Saudi
Arabia is as well.
From the Huffington Post
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-braude/why-china-and-saudi-arabi_b_12194702.html"
But now there are two new kids on the block: On January 21st,
the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry announced an agreement with
Djibouti to host its first-ever base beyond the South China Sea,
and construction commenced days later. Though Beijing called the
installation a “logistics and fast evacuation base,” the Asian
power’s “near-abroad” rivals, such as Taiwan, opined that it is
more likely the beginning of a new, aggressive military buildup
to rival the United States. Six weeks later, Saudi Arabia
declared that it too would construct a base in Djibouti,
apparently as part of its newly assertive policy of countering
Iranian proxies politically and militarily throughout the
region.
. . . .
Neither the timing nor the confluence of these projects is mere
coincidence. America’s diminishing global military footprint has
begun to affect the calculation of allies and rivals alike, and
the outsized role Djibouti is poised to play in its neighborhood
presents a case in point of the consequences. An examination of
the changing role the country plays in American, Chinese, and
Arab security policy offers a glimpse into potential conflicts
as well as opportunities arising from the shift—and some steps
Americans can take to prepare for both.
#Post#: 15570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bamboozled and Betrayed, Deceived and Duped
DIR By: paralambano
Date: July 20, 2017, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What I don't get is that Trump has said don't telegraph what
you're about to do when it comes to military action. Yet, when
it comes to trade and other stuff, he seems to be perfectly
willing to tweet his thoughts about everything. I mean, is this
what Xi and Vlad do?
para . . . .
#Post#: 15656--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bamboozled and Betrayed, Deceived and Duped
DIR By: Kerry
Date: July 27, 2017, 11:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: paralambano link ---
>
> What I don't get is that Trump has said don't telegraph what
you're about to do when it comes to military action. Yet, when
it comes to trade and other stuff, he seems to be perfectly
willing to tweet his thoughts about everything. I mean, is this
what Xi and Vlad do?
>
>
> para . . . .
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm catching up. . . .
It gets pretty confusing to me. He had all that tough talk
about trade with Canada. When Trudeau visited, no one knew
what to expect. There was a sigh of relief when the Canadians
figured out all the tough talk meant little. Why do that? I
think he believes he can repeat what he did in business --
talking tough often does get someone almost to beg for a
contract if he really wants it, and you can gain all kinds of
concessions by issuing threats and the like. Someone must have
taken Trump aside and explained things to him and why it
wouldn't be wise to act on those words. This made him look
like a paper tiger.
It has also led to Canada strengthening its ties with other
countries. Canada has at least two new trade agreements in the
works; and the plan is laid to export more lumber to China just
in case the US gets too tough. Mexico has done similar things
in response to his tough talk.
I cannot think that everything will return to the way it was
when Trump's four or eight years are over. Things are being
done now that will have permanent effects. Some may benefit the
US, some won't. Some version of the TPP will survive but
without the US. It surely also had to frustrate all the
other countries who negotiated the deal. The big winner from
Trump's withdrawal from the TPP is China.
Not that I particularly like the TPP when Obama started it. I
also disagreed with Obama's decision to build a military base in
Australia. Moves like these made China paranoid; I think they
were already aggressive enough, and these moves made them worse.
But once embarked on a project, you shouldn't drop it the way
Trump did. I think China should have been asked to join,
using the carrot and stick approach. They could have had their
arms twisted to drop their new military build up in the
Pacific. If they were convinced they'd be treated fairly, they
wouldn't need a bigger military. The borders disputes they have
might have been resolved too if they had wanted to join TPP
enough.
#Post#: 15662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bamboozled and Betrayed, Deceived and Duped
DIR By: Kerry
Date: July 28, 2017, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First let's go back to May 2016 when Trump was on the campaign
trail. Trump definitely got outplayed on this; but I'd say he
outwitted himself trying to be too smart.
HTML http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-agriculture/2016/05/trumps-confusing-position-on-japans-beef-tariffs-this-week-gmo-on-the-mind-bennets-beer-bump-214186
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on
Saturday again promised to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
after accusing the White House of signing the deal without
knowing what's in it. Then he pledged to get rid of Japan’s high
tariffs on U.S. beef exports — which is something TPP would do.
“In Nebraska yesterday — Gov. [Pete] Ricketts was terrific — I
said, ‘Listen, let me ask you, how do you deal with Japan?’ He
said, ‘Well, it’s tough, because they charge us a tariff for
beef,’” Trump recounted at a rally in Spokane, Wash. “They
charge us a tariff, I didn’t know this, 38 percent. ... I will
take care of that situation so fast. In one day that situation
will be equalized.”
Japan is already the U.S. beef industry’s top export market, but
is notorious for its high levels of agricultural protection. The
TPP deal struck last October would reduce Japan’s beef tariffs,
while further opening the market for U.S. pork and other
products. Last month, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
joined with 224 other food and farm organizations to urge
Congress to immediately pass the pact.
The cattlemen fear losing more of the Japan market to Australia,
which has a trade deal with Japan that went into effect last
year. That pact has cut Japan’s tariff on Australian beef to
27.5 percent and will continue to phase it down to 19 percent by
2031. The TPP agreement, if passed, would immediately cut
Japan’s tariff on U.S. beef to 27.5 percent and then reduce it
to nine percent over the next 16 years.
Well, the news today is Japan is raising their tariff on frozen
beef products.
HTML https://japantoday.com/category/business/update2-japan-to-slap-emergency-tariffs-on-u.s.-frozen-beef-from-aug.
The Japanese government said Friday it will impose emergency
tariffs on frozen beef, widely used in fast food, from the
United States and other regions from August after soaring
imports prompted by a price hike in Australian beef following a
draught.
Japan will raise tariffs on the product from the current 38.5
percent to 50 percent until next March. It is the first time in
14 years Japan has taken the emergency measures on U.S. beef
imports, a decision likely to irk Washington.
Imported frozen beef is mainly used in foods such as hamburgers
and beef-bowl dishes and could lead to increases in consumer
prices.
Allowed under World Trade Organization rules, Japan
automatically introduces the so-called safeguard tariffs when
imports grow more than 17 percent in a quarter on a year-on-year
basis.
Finance Minister Taro Aso told reporters the government is
explaining the move to the United States and other countries.
It's good news for Australia!
HTML http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-07-28/japanese-tariff-on-us-beef-good-news-australian-industry/8753382
Chairman of the Australian Meat Industry Council Lachie Hart
helped pioneer Australian beef exports to Japan.
He said the news from Japan was very welcome at a tough time for
the industry, already impacted by the strong Australian dollar.
"Certainly that's having a bigger impact globally for our
Australian exports at a time when processers are really
struggling under a very difficult trading environment," he said.
"The Aussie dollar hasn't helped the trading circumstance …
[but] this is certainly going to open up another opportunity for
Australian exporters to hopefully get product into those markets
at reasonable prices."
Mr Hart said the news also highlighted the benefits of pursuing
bilateral trade agreements for Australian exporters.
"I think Japan's a great example of where we work very hard as
an industry, with government, to get in place a great agreement
that's going to work for Australian exporters for many years and
Japan's a great example of that," Mr Hart said.
But the joy could be short-lived according to Mr Quilty who
warned Australian beef exporters would only have a limited
window to take advantage of any increase in tariffs on US beef.
"I would say by January next year, the Japanese will be looking
again to be buying out of the US, and they will be controlling
this much better than what they have in recent times," he said.
#Post#: 15666--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bamboozled and Betrayed, Deceived and Duped
DIR By: paralambano
Date: July 28, 2017, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
--- Quote ---
> It gets pretty confusing to me. He had all that tough talk
about trade with Canada. When Trudeau visited, no one knew
what to expect. There was a sigh of relief when the Canadians
figured out all the tough talk meant little. Why do that? I
think he believes he can repeat what he did in business --
talking tough often does get someone almost to beg for a
contract if he really wants it, and you can gain all kinds of
concessions by issuing threats and the like. Someone must have
taken Trump aside and explained things to him and why it
wouldn't be wise to act on those words. This made him look
like a paper tiger.
--- End Quote ---
Indeed. Why not sit down and think things through? Look at all
of the possible outcomes in a sober manner instead of coming in
all bull-headed with people who have much more experience and
polish politically. It's the old used-car salesman routine
stereotype.
--- Quote ---
> Not that I particularly like the TPP when Obama started it. I
also disagreed with Obama's decision to build a military base in
Australia. Moves like these made China paranoid; I think they
were already aggressive enough, and these moves made them worse.
But once embarked on a project, you shouldn't drop it the way
Trump did. I think China should have been asked to join,
using the carrot and stick approach. They could have had their
arms twisted to drop their new military build up in the
Pacific. If they were convinced they'd be treated fairly, they
wouldn't need a bigger military. The borders disputes they have
might have been resolved too if they had wanted to join TPP
enough.
--- End Quote ---
I guess the US wants to ensure that trade ships get by the
disputed islands in the South China Sea but do they need a base
in Australia for that? The nations disputing these islands
should settle their differences among themselves I think. The
British should be careful there as well.
para . . . .
#Post#: 15800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bamboozled and Betrayed, Deceived and Duped
DIR By: Kerry
Date: August 8, 2017, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: paralambano link ---
>
> Kerry -
>
> Indeed. Why not sit down and think things through? Look at all
of the possible outcomes in a sober manner instead of coming in
all bull-headed with people who have much more experience and
polish politically. It's the old used-car salesman routine
stereotype.
--- End Quote ---
Yes, indeed. Why not, and why rush to talk about things that
aren't finalized yet? It seems that the missile deal that Obama
put on hold when Poland wanted missiles has now been put on hold
by Poland.
--- Quote ---
> I guess the US wants to ensure that trade ships get by the
disputed islands in the South China Sea but do they need a base
in Australia for that? The nations disputing these islands
should settle their differences among themselves I think. The
British should be careful there as well.
--- End Quote ---
You know the US doesn't need a new base in Australia. It's
provocative. I also believe if the US seriously wanted North
Korea to negotiate and China to apply real pressure other than
sanctions, the US would offer to shut down the military base in
North Korea if and when North Korea disarmed itself so it posed
no threat to South Korea. China would be so happy, and China
also might agree to shut down some of its facilities.
Back to the news from Poland now. I read about this first at
Tass and didn't know if I could believe it. It turned out to be
true! The things one can learn by reading Russian propaganda
when things go their way and they want to let everyone know.
HTML http://tass.com/world/959362
I won't quote from Tass. Let's go back to the news when Obama
was President.
September 17, 2009
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-barack-obama
Barack Obama has abandoned the controversial Pentagon plan to
build a missile defence system in Europe that had long soured
relations with Russia.
In one of the sharpest breaks yet with the policies of the Bush
administration, Obama said the new approach would offer
"stronger, swifter and smarter" defence for the US and its
allies. He said it would focus on the threat posed by Iran's
short- and medium-range missiles, rather than its
intercontinental nuclear capabilities.
Obama announced the reversal officially at a news conference
today. "This new approach will provide capabilities sooner,
build on proven systems to offer greater defences to the threat
of attack than the 2007 European missile defence programme," he
said.
He phoned the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic last
night to tell them he had dropped plans to site missile
interceptors and a radar station in their respective countries.
Russia had furiously opposed the project, claiming it targeted
Moscow's nuclear arsenal.
Poland wanted the missile shield. They still did in 2016.
January 1, 2016
HTML http://www.currenteventspoland.com/analysis/Poland-Foreign-Ministry-Poland-Needs-Security-and-Ballistic-Missile-Defense.html
[The following is from an interview with Minister of Foreign
Affairs Witold Waszczykowski.]
Question: Today, 6 years later, Poland still has no such system
in place, but for example Romania’s system will be ready in May
2016. When can we expect the ballistic missile defense to be
built in Poland?
Answer: I have been asking U.S. authorities this question for
many years. I’ve had a chance to repeat my question to John
Kerry a few weeks ago, when I met him at the NATO Foreign
Affairs Ministers meeting. Americans confirm that the
commitments they made in the past to Poland are still valid.
They say that the process of building the ballistic missile
defense in Poland will commence next year and will be completed
by 2018. However, we are aware that keeping those deadlines
might be difficult, as the next year is the election year in the
U.S., and their interior affairs might take priority over
foreign commitments they made. The ballistic missile defense is
a very expensive project which requires tests and building the
type of the system prior to it being installed in Poland. Thus,
it is questionable whether the U.S. will be determined to start
this process during the election year.
After Trump won the election, Waszczykowski addressed the
issue again on Radio Poland.
HTML http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/279186,Warsaw-will-focus-on-security-in-talks-with-Trump-Polish-FM
Warsaw will focus on security in its first talks with new US
President Donald Trump, Polish Foreign Minister Witold
Waszczykowski said on Wednesday.
Poland wants to talk about “implementation of allied decisions
from July, to be absolutely sure that there will not be any
hesitation, as happened eight years ago when President Barack
Obama put the missile defence shield on hold,” Waszczykowski
said.
“We will want to get confirmation from the Americans that allied
decisions will be implemented," Waszczykowski told private
broadcaster TVN 24.
At a Warsaw summit in July, NATO states decided to deploy four
rotating battalions of about 1,000 soldiers each to the
alliance’s eastern flank, including to Poland, amid fears of
potential Russian aggression.
In addition, the United States announced that an armoured
brigade would be sent to Poland.
Imagine my surprise then at the news the deal was in jeopardy.
August 8, 2017
HTML https://www.defensenews.com/smr/space-missile-defense/2017/08/02/poland-sends-mixed-signals-on-patriot-negotiations/
WASHINGTON — The secretary of state at Poland’s Ministry of
National Defence has threatened to break off an impending deal
with the U.S. government to buy Patriot air-and-missile defense
systems if certain requirements for technology transfers are not
met, according to a letter sent July 15 to the director of the
U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Then the Polish government attempted to temper the letter in an
Aug. 1 posting on the ministry’s website after the letter went
public.
The letter was sent just over a week after a memorandum was
signed by Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz and DSCA
Director Vice Adm. Joseph Rixey that set up a two-phased plan to
buy Patriot. The memo signing directly followed a visit by U.S.
President Donald Trump to Poland where he praised Poland for
wanting to buy Patriot.
The memo made political headway but is seen as no closer to
minting an actual deal than it was earlier this year when the
country said it would buy Patriot by year’s end.
[Poland signs memo with US outlining road map to buy Patriot,
but no done deal yet]
Poland and the U.S. government have been working through
negotiations regarding what is in the realm of the possible for
the Wisla program. The country wants a good deal of technology
transfer, and it has made several unique requests that have
slowed the possible purchase of the Patriot systems, asking for
the first two of eight batteries to have Northrop Grumman’s
not-yet-fielded Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle
Command System, or IBCS, included by 2019 and the following six
Patriots to have a 360-degree radar, which Patriot also
currently does not have.
The U.S. Army won’t be fielding IBCS itself until likely 2022.
By June, Poland and the U.S. seemed to have hit a roadblock due
to technology transfer issues and delivery timeline hurdles.
Is it really about the technology transfer, or is Poland looking
at Trump as a waffler and not an ally they can depend on?
Russia has been solidly opposed to this missile system from the
beginning. Why annoy them further if the US can't be depended
on?
I wonder too why Turkey, a member of NATO, announced it will be
buying a missile defense system from Russia!
July 17, 2017
HTML http://www.businessinsider.com/turkey-agreed-to-buy-russias-s-400-missle-system-concerns-about-nato-2017-7
Turkey reached an agreement with Russia to purchase the latter's
most sophisticated missile-defense system, the S-400, a senior
Turkish military official told Bloomberg last week.
Under the $2.5 billion agreement Ankara would receive two
batteries of the antiaircraft missile from Moscow within the
coming year and then produce two more batteries in Turkey.
At the beginning of June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said
Moscow was ready to deliver the missile system, and a Russian
military-industry official said an agreement on technical
details had been reached in mid-June.
Turkey stepped up efforts to acquire its own missile-defense
system after the US, Germany, and the Netherlands — all NATO
members — decided at the end of 2015 not to renew their
Patriot-missile deployments in southern Turkey. Spanish and
Italian missile batteries remain in the country, but those
systems are linked to the NATO air-defense system.
The deal has not been finalized and could still fall through, as
has happened before — under pressure from the US, Turkey
scrapped plans to buy missiles from a Chinese state-run company
that had been sanctioned for allegedly selling missiles to Iran.
(Ankara has also sought out alternative missile systems from the
US and France.)
But the agreement has deepened concern that Turkey is drifting
away from its longstanding alliance in NATO, which it joined
during the security bloc's first enlargement in 1952.
July 17, 2017 again
HTML http://www.eurasianet.org/node/84386
On July 13, Bloomberg reported, citing unnamed officials, that
Turkey had agreed to pay $2.5 billion for Russia's S-400 air
defense system, and that two batteries would be delivered within
the next year and two more produced in Turkey. The deal,
Bloomberg wrote, "signals a turn away from the NATO military
alliance that has anchored Turkey to the West for more than six
decades."
But then the very next day Turkish Defense Minister Fikri
Işık made another announcement: "I am happy to
announce that this afternoon Turkey has signed a cooperation
agreement with Italian-French consortium Eurosam to produce
missile defense systems," he said at a Bastille Day reception at
the French embassy in Ankara.
This is the latest twist in the saga, increasingly resembling a
Turkish soap opera, of Ankara's quest to find true love in the
form of surface-to-air missiles. There was a long courtship by
American, European, Russian, and Chinese suitors, and then the
shock announcement in 2013 that Turkey would opt not for the
safe, steady NATO partner but the exotic Chinese bad boy. That
engagement, though, fell apart and Turkey said it would never
love again and that it would build its own air defense system by
itself. But that self-imposed solitude didn't last long, and
Turkey seemed to be open to advances from the other, really bad
boy: Russia.
Now Ankara has, to strain this metaphor perhaps to the breaking
point, simultaneously announced engagements to both Russia and
Europe. So what's actually going on?
No Turkish official has yet explained the relationship between
the two deals. And it seems unlikely that Turkey would buy both
systems, mainly for cost reasons. The original deal with China
was for $3 billion, and so if Ankara were (hypothetically)
spending the same amount of money, they wouldn't have much left
after spending $2.5 billion for the S-400. And Turkey's economic
situation has gotten substantially worse since 2013.
The anonymous Turkish official told Bloomberg that one selling
point of the Russian system is that it wouldn't be subject to
the same set of constraints that NATO would place on Turkey,
"which prevents Turkey from deploying such systems on the
Armenian border, Aegean coast or Greek border, the official
said. The Russian deal would allow Turkey to deploy the missile
defense systems anywhere in the country." That's a curious
explanation -- it's not clear why Turkey would need to deploy
advanced air defense systems against Greece, as tensions between
Athens and Ankara are as low as they've been in decades. And on
the Armenian border the only threat is... Russia.
Another selling point that the official noted was that Russia
would transfer some of the technology to Turkey, which has been
one of Ankara's most consistent requirements. But the European
deal would also allow for joint production, though we don't know
enough about the preliminary deals to compare the respective
amounts of technology the Russians and Europeans would be
willing to share. And buying a NATO-compatible system would
allow Turkey to integrate that system into NATO's larger air
defense network.
The timing is also remarkable since Secretary of State
Tillerson had just visited Turkey about a week before this
announcement. I think he may have been misled in Turkey and
may have been wrong when he said the relationship between Turkey
and the US was "on the mend."
July 10, 2017
HTML http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tillerson-us-turkey-relationship-on-the-mend/article/2628144
America's strained relationship with a key NATO ally is "on the
mend," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Monday.
"I think our relationship here in Turkey, which has been under
some stress for some time — I hope we are beginning to put it on
the mend," Tillerson told State Department employees at the U.S.
Consulate in Istanbul.
Turkey is a member of NATO, but that hasn't prevented sharp
national security and political disagreements in recent years.
To defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the United States
partnered with an ethnic minority the Turks believe have strong
ties to separatist terrorist group in their country. Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also has governed in an
authoritarian manner, especially following a failed coup
attempt, resulting in clashes with western powers.
"I've had now about six hours of meetings over three different
occasions with President Erdogan, and I think each meeting
things are getting a little better, in terms of the tone between
us," Tillerson said. "I think we are beginning to rebuild some
of that trust that we lost in one another. They lost our trust,
to a certain extent; we lost theirs."
#Post#: 19147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bamboozled and Betrayed, Deceived and Duped
DIR By: Kerry
Date: June 27, 2018, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We can all sleep easy, President Trump told us. North Korea was
abandoning its nuclear program.
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/27/north-korea-nuclear-reactor-upgrades-summit-pledges
North Korea has continued to upgrade its only known nuclear
reactor used to fuel its weapons program, satellite imagery has
shown, despite ongoing negotiations with the US and a pledge to
denuclearise.
Infrastructure improvements at the Yongbyon nuclear plant are
“continuing at a rapid pace”, according to an analysis by
monitoring group 38 North of commercial satellite images taken
on 21 June.
The cooling system for the plutonium production reactor has been
modified and at least two new non-industrial buildings have been
built on the site, possibly for use by visiting officials. A new
engineering office building has been completed and construction
has continued on support facilities throughout the complex,
according to a blog post written by Frank V Pabian, Joseph S
Bermudez Jr and Jack Liu.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1