What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The war in Syria (2 Viewers)

Murph said:
Ren points out uncomfortable truths about American foreign policy.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. At times his critiques are quite interesting. But he mixes in thoughtful criticism with conspiracy nonsense that is way out there, and his conclusions are IMO so totally off base as to weaken many of his more valid points. 

 
Justin Amash @justinamash

You are right on Syria, @POTUS @realDonaldTrump. The same senators complaining they weren’t given advance notice were perfectly content when @POTUS44 introduced U.S. forces into Syria without advance approval from Congress as the Constitution requires. Their concern is backward.

I heard a colleague say on @AC360 that as long as there remains even one member of ISIS in Syria, we should stay there. This is a radical, dangerous approach to foreign policy and war. This is how you get endless, immoral, unwinnable war.

@LindseyGrahamSC and @marcorubio are essentially demanding a permanent U.S. military presence in Syria (and many other places). They justify it with an irrational, unachievable objective: We’ll get out when conflict and terror cease to exist. All without congressional approval.

 
No good way to exit.  I don't feel we are doing right by the Kurds but the cost to staying is billions of dollars and more American lives.  Ultimately Bashar Assad being in control of Syria is the least of bad options for the U.S.  The relationship with Turkey and the Kurds is another layer to a tangled mess.

 
Shula-holic said:
No good way to exit.  I don't feel we are doing right by the Kurds but the cost to staying is billions of dollars and more American lives.  Ultimately Bashar Assad being in control of Syria is the least of bad options for the U.S.  The relationship with Turkey and the Kurds is another layer to a tangled mess.
Click to expand...
After Iraq and this, the Kurds have every right to be the next group that turns against us with guerrila tactics all over the Middle East. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shula-holic said:
No good way to exit.  I don't feel we are doing right by the Kurds but the cost to staying is billions of dollars and more American lives.  Ultimately Bashar Assad being in control of Syria is the least of bad options for the U.S.  The relationship with Turkey and the Kurds is another layer to a tangled mess.
Click to expand...
Eh, no good way but some ways are better than others.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Eh, no good way but some ways are better than others.
Click to expand...
Yes it could be handled better.  End result though, short of us deciding we are going to stay as permanent protector from the Turks/Assad, what else is there?  I'm saying this from a position of wishing the Kurds had their own homeland.  But we aren't too good in nation building or getting involved in this region.

 
Neoconservatism, it seems, never dies. It just mutates constantly to find new ways to intervene, to perpetuate forever wars, to send more young Americans to die in countries that don’t want them amid populations that try to kill them. If you want the most recent proof of that, look at Yemen, where the Saudi policy of mass civilian deaths in a Sunni war on Shiites is backed by American arms and U.S. It’s also backed by American troops on the ground — in a secret war conducted by Green Berets that was concealed from Congress. There is no conceivable threat to the U.S. from the Houthi rebels in Yemen; and there was no prior congressional approval. Did you even know we had ground troops deployed there?

So it was not surprising that the usual suspects — the people who brought you the Iraq War — blanketed the mainstream media these past couple of days with the usual threats and bluffs and bluster, and that the mainstream media amplified their message. Jake Tapper reported yesterday that “senior officials across the administration agree that the president’s decision-by-tweet will recklessly put American and allied lives in danger around the world, take the pressure off of ISIS allowing them to reconstitute, and hand a strategic victory to our Syrian, Iranian, and Russian adversaries … It’s a mistake of colossal proportions and the president fails to see how it will endanger our country.”

Sorry, but I also fail to see how it will endanger the United States. I’ve heard these arguments so many times before — and I used them myself, to my eternal shame, before the Iraq catastrophe. But unlike most of the authors of that catastrophe, I learned my lesson. I simply do not believe that the West has the knowledge, the will, or the ability to shape the extremely complicated and endlessly vicious politics of the Middle East. And I defy anyone to show otherwise. It’s an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole. If we haven’t learned that by now, after spending $6 trillion so far in this forever war on terror, and wreaking chaos and havoc across the region, we never will. Of course, there is a moral case for not destroying a country and then walking away. But ending a conflict that began in 2003? Isn’t 15 years enough? That’s three times as long as the war against Hitler.

As for Israel — which is, of course, the real motivation for most neoconservative dreams of controlling the Middle East — it can surely defend itself at this point. Israel has massive military, technological, intelligence, and economic advantages over its neighbors, and, unlike Iran, also has nuclear weapons, refuses to admit it, and will not sign (again unlike Iran) the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. And the Israelis need U.S. troops to occupy the Middle East permanently as well? Why? It’s high time the U.S. called their bluff.

But Washington never learns this lesson, cannot relinquish the imperial temptation, even as it has bankrupted us, killed and maimed thousands of young Americans, and turned us into a country that commits war crimes. If you want to understand why we have a resurgence of populism and why a patently unfit person like Trump became president, it’s because most Americans know when their government refuses to do what its people want.

The Establishment Will Never Say No to a War

 
ren hoek said:
To be fair, it’s probably a little foolhardy to treat this like anti-intervention on Trump’s part.  It almost certainly has more to do with getting Turkey’s support on some other horrible #### the Trump admin wants to do.  

Scahill brought up the suggestion that troop drawdowns could be about bringing in Prince PMCs to take over for US forces.  We’ll see how it plays out but I hope it represents a reduction in US militarism. 
Click to expand...
That would be nice, though there are probably better ways to start than telling Turkey we're leaving so they can massacre the Kurds.  We've betrayed their trust time after time over the years.

 
Ranethe said:
Wasn’t sure where to put this, Turkey is not supporting US sanctions on Iran. We apparently just sold them a whole bunch of weapons just before Trump announced the troop pullout. I don’t pretend to fully understand the ramifications of this but it strikes me as really messed up (of course)

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Turkey-Stands-Firmly-Against-US-Sanctions-On-Iran.html
Click to expand...
Sounds like that’s the “expanded trade” Trump said he was talking about with Erdogan. Expanded between Iran and Turkey. 

 
Tweeting a decision to withdraw without discussing and notifying your allies, key cabinet members, Syrian Special Envoy McGurk, key Republican members of the Senate and House is just wrong, terribly wrong. When it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy Trump is like a raging bucking bull in a China shop.

 
And he is rage tweeting again this morning about failed generals and he hasn’t been treated as a national hero for destroying ISIS. 

 
John Bolton is going around to our allies telling them that we’re not leaving Syria until ISIS is defeated and until Turkey gives us guarantees that they won’t attack the Kurds. When this was reported yesterday, Trump said “I never said it would be a quick withdrawal.” It looks like we’re not leaving at all. Or maybe we are. Who knows? 

 
timschochet said:
John Bolton is going around to our allies telling them that we’re not leaving Syria until ISIS is defeated and until Turkey gives us guarantees that they won’t attack the Kurds. When this was reported yesterday, Trump said “I never said it would be a quick withdrawal.” It looks like we’re not leaving at all. Or maybe we are. Who knows? 
Click to expand...
Wow, the resistance, news media and generals sure owned Trump here.  Instead of pulling troops out of Syria, like Trump wanted- a move Elizabeth Warren, Ro Khanna, Rand Paul and Justin Amash all supported- John Bolton has whisked us back to safely occupying Syria forever.  What a relief.  

 
timschochet said:
John Bolton is going around to our allies telling them that we’re not leaving Syria until ISIS is defeated and until Turkey gives us guarantees that they won’t attack the Kurds. When this was reported yesterday, Trump said “I never said it would be a quick withdrawal.” It looks like we’re not leaving at all. Or maybe we are. Who knows? 
Click to expand...
So the already leaving, ISIS isndefeated was?  Wait for it...a lie?

 
timschochet said:
John Bolton is going around to our allies telling them that we’re not leaving Syria until ISIS is defeated and until Turkey gives us guarantees that they won’t attack the Kurds. When this was reported yesterday, Trump said “I never said it would be a quick withdrawal.” It looks like we’re not leaving at all. Or maybe we are. Who knows? 
Click to expand...
Clearly not Trump...

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 58m58 minutes ago

The Failing New York Times has knowingly written a very inaccurate story on my intentions on Syria. No different from my original statements, we will be leaving at a proper pace while at the same time continuing to fight ISIS and doing all else that is prudent and necessary!.....

 
ren hoek said:
Wow, the resistance, news media and generals sure owned Trump here.  Instead of pulling troops out of Syria, like Trump wanted- a move Elizabeth Warren, Ro Khanna, Rand Paul and Justin Amash all supported- John Bolton has whisked us back to safely occupying Syria forever.  What a relief.  
Click to expand...
Whatever your viewpoint is on the right vs wrong of pulling out our troops- and we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree there- the one truth that comes out of all this is that the Trump White House is truly dysfunctional, that he really has no idea what he’s doing. Surely after this sorry episode, even you have to acknowledge that. 

 
Skoo said:
Clearly not Trump...

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 58m58 minutes ago

The Failing New York Times has knowingly written a very inaccurate story on my intentions on Syria. No different from my original statements, we will be leaving at a proper pace while at the same time continuing to fight ISIS and doing all else that is prudent and necessary!.....
Click to expand...
A proper pace could be 1 year or 100 years. 

 
timschochet said:
Whatever your viewpoint is on the right vs wrong of pulling out our troops- and we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree there- the one truth that comes out of all this is that the Trump White House is truly dysfunctional, that he really has no idea what he’s doing. Surely after this sorry episode, even you have to acknowledge that. 
Click to expand...
For heaven’s sake the US is in Syria ILLEGALLY as an occupying army.  They don’t want us there.  There is no national interest in staying there.  There wasn’t even a congressional debate about it, let alone an authorization to invade in the first place.  Sorry but Trump is right here and the neocons are dead wrong.  

 
ren hoek said:
For heaven’s sake the US is in Syria ILLEGALLY as an occupying army.  They don’t want us there.  There is no national interest in staying there.  There wasn’t even a congressional debate about it, let alone an authorization to invade in the first place.  Sorry but Trump is right here and the neocons are dead wrong.  
Click to expand...
Lol you completely ignored my question. 

Anyhow, what is Trump right about: pulling out all the troops in 30 days or leaving them in there until Isis is destroyed? Removing them immediately or having them leave at “a proper pace”? 

 
timschochet said:
Lol you completely ignored my question. 

Anyhow, what is Trump right about: pulling out all the troops in 30 days or leaving them in there until Isis is destroyed? Removing them immediately or having them leave at “a proper pace”? 
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize you’d asked one?

Pulling the troops out.  We are occupying their country illegally, they don’t want us there, and there was never any popular support to start this war or stay there indefinitely.  Just leave.  

 
ren hoek said:
I didn’t realize you’d asked one?

Pulling the troops out.  We are occupying their country illegally, they don’t want us there, and there was never any popular support to start this war or stay there indefinitely.  Just leave.  
Click to expand...
Turns out your arguments are irrelevant because we're not leaving.

Whatever you think of the President's decision two weeks ago, it was made on a whim.  Now he's been talked out of it. He may be talked back into it tomorrow. He has no clue as to what he's doing.  And in the meantime he lies about it- "I never said I'd leave quickly!" So full of ####.

 
ren hoek said:
 Just leave.  
Click to expand...
The sad thing is Trump doesn't really care. There's an argument for pacifism, and there's an argument for intervention, and people making these argument care, and they fairly pretty much understand why they say what they want. The awful reality is Trump doesn't know why he says or does what he says. No links here, happy to go through the trouble as always, but as I understand it Trump got on a call on Erdogan and he was supposed to demand that Erdogan would ensure the safety of the Kurds and our allies before we would discuss leaving. Trump apparently said the complete opposite. Why? Who knows. He just heard "withdrawal" and that was his takeaway. Then of course he rushed out to defend this damned thing he did. Then his SOD quit, his envoy to our allies quit, the surrounding staffers quit (that process is still underway). Now our PNSA Bolton says that the US course is the exact same thing as it was before, and our SOS Pompeo says that was what Trump said all along! That's happening. The pacifists are screwed, the interventionists are screwed, Kurds, Erdogan, Israel, Palestine, administration, cabinet members, PLA, everyone, everyone is screwed, because who knows what the hell is going on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The sad thing is Trump doesn't really care. There's an argument for pacifism, and there's an argument for intervention, and people making these argument care, and they fairly pretty much understand why they say what they want. The awful reality is Trump doesn't know why he says or does what he says. No links here, happy to go through the trouble as always, but as I understand it Trump got on a call on Erdogan and he was supposed to demand that Erdogan would ensure the safety of the Kurds and our allies before we would discuss leaving. Trump apparently said the complete opposite. Why? Who knows. He just heard "withdrawal" and that was his takeaway. Then of course he rushed out to defend this damned thing he did. Then his SOD quit, his envoy to our allies quit, the surrounding staffers quit (that process is still underway). Now our PNSA Bolton says that the US course is the exact same thing as it was before, and our SOS Pompeo says that was what Trump said all along! That's happening. The pacifists are screwed, the interventionists are screwed, Kurds, Erdogan, Israel, Palestine, administration, cabinet members, PLA, everyone, everyone is screwed, because who knows what the hell is going on.
Click to expand...
There's only an interventionist argument if the US is a rogue state and international law doesn't matter.  I read a great comment yesterday: "Here in US we are obsessed with the rule of law; internationally, not quite so much. Have we been unclear about that?"

I don't care what Trump's reasons are for pulling troops out of Syria or Afghanistan.  I don't care what John Bolton thinks.  Trump should be faulted for not following through on his words, but not as much as the national security state for perpetuating this quagmire with no end in sight.  

You should realize, too, that if Trump ramped up the militarism on NK/Syria/Iran/Russia, the establishment press would start blowing him tomorrow.  People that were ####ting on Trump the second he tried to bring some troops home from an illegal occupation should be grateful, they got their wish.  The troops are staying 'until the time is right.'

 
ren hoek said:
There's only an interventionist argument if the US is a rogue state and international law doesn't matter.  I read a great comment yesterday: "Here in US we are obsessed with the rule of law; internationally, not quite so much. Have we been unclear about that?"

I don't care what Trump's reasons are for pulling troops out of Syria or Afghanistan.  I don't care what John Bolton thinks.  Trump should be faulted for not following through on his words, but not as much as the national security state for perpetuating this quagmire with no end in sight.  

You should realize, too, that if Trump ramped up the militarism on NK/Syria/Iran/Russia, the establishment press would start blowing him tomorrow.  People that were ####ting on Trump the second he tried to bring some troops home from an illegal occupation should be grateful, they got their wish.  The troops are staying 'until the time is right.'
Click to expand...
That's kind of my point, he doesn't have a reason. He had an impulse. Later the impulse might be different. And his words don't matter to him but they matter to everyone else. Syria is your issue, but for someone else it's been other issues, and whatever Trump says is pretty meaningless. His words matter because what the president says is policy - and people and countries act on that - but Trump's words as policy are destructive. Even from a pacifist, strictly anti-wart POV Trump's words will just cause more damage here because it will cause greater conflict.

I'm not too interested in the press here, they're like everyone else. To the extent any reporters rely on Trump, it's their own fault. - NK is probably a pretty good example. Trump tells the world we have a deal to denuke. No we don't. NK thinks the deal is for the US to withdraw all its nukes from the Pacific rim. Trump told the world he would force NK to denuclearize and suggested it was because he was intimidating them into doing so. Result is miscommunication. NK continues to expand its nuclear program, and the US administration around Trump gets increasingly alarmed because they seem to think NK is acting against the deal. - Trump tells different people different things, the result is greater risk of conflict. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Liz Sly @LizSly

The US withdrawal from Syria is on. That ship in the photo is heading to the Middle East to help get the troops out. "We don't take orders from Bolton" said a Pentagon official. Good story by @nancyayoussef & @DionNissenbaum

 
Ariel Edwards-Levy @aedwardslevy

In April 2018, 38% of Clinton voters said the U.S. had a responsibility in Syria. In December, after Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces, 60% did. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/americans-views-of-trump-are-shaping-their-opinions-on-syria_us_5c37aecce4b05cb31c40c927 …

That shift is especially notable because the questions included no mention of Trump, nor any cues about which of the positions he currently holds.

 
U.S. Troops Among Dead in Islamic State Bombing in Syria
 

American troops were among 15 people killed on Wednesday in a suicide bombing in northern Syria that was claimed by the Islamic State, just weeks after President Trump ordered the withdrawal of United States forces with what he declared the extremist group’s defeat.

The attack targeted a restaurant in the northern city of Manbij where American soldiers would sometimes stop to eat during their patrols of the area, residents said. After the blast, a number of Americans were evacuated by helicopter, they said. It was not immediately clear how many had been in the area at the time of the blast.

A statement by the Baghdad-based American headquarters for the fight against the Islamic State said the attack happened while the troops were on a patrol.

“U.S. service members were killed during an explosion while conducting a routine patrol in Syria today,” said the statement, which was posted on Twitter. “We are still gathering information and will share additional details at a later time.”

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights put the death toll at 15 and said one American soldier was among the dead. Additionally, a Defense Department official said there were multiple Americans killed or wounded but did not give specific numbers. Another United States official said as many as three American troops and an American civilian were killed.
Click to expand...

 
SYRIA SAYS U.S. SHOULD GIVE ISRAEL 'SOUTH CAROLINA' INSTEAD OF GOLAN HEIGHTS, 'IT'S THE LAND OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM'

Syria's envoy to the United Nations suggested that the United States offer Israel land that Washington actually had jurisdiction over rather than the occupied Golan Heights.

Bashar al-Jaafari, Syria's permanent representative to the United Nations, made the remarks at a Security Council session organized Thursday at his country's request in the wake of President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He called the decision "null and void" and warned of "a serious and unprecedented delinquency in the current U.S. administration toward undermining international law and insulting the United Nations."

"The Syrian Arab Golan is ours and will return to us," Jaafari asserted, arguing the disputed land would not "be part of some damned and wicked deal, or a pawn to be exchanged for support in your electoral games," which should instead concern "the territory of the American administration."

 
http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers/assessment-by-the-engineering-sub-team-of-the-opcw-fact-finding-mission-investigating-the-alleged-chemical-attack-in-douma-in-april-2018

The dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders, and the surrounding scene of the incidents, were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder being delivered from an aircraft. In each case the alternative hypothesis produced the only plausible explanation for observations at the scene.

The conclusion of the Engineering Assessment is unequivocal: the “alternative hypothesis†(sic) that the cylinders were manually placed in position is “the only plausible explanation for observations at the scene”.

Our last Briefing Note listed two other key findings:

It is no longer seriously disputed that the hospital scene was staged: there are multiple eyewitness reports supported by video evidence

The case fatality rate of 100%, with no attempt by the victims to escape, is unlike any recorded chlorine attack.

Taken together, these findings establish beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018 was staged. ..

We conclude that the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of at least 35 civilians to provide the bodies at Location 2. It follows from this that people dressed as White Helmets and endorsed by the leadership of that organization had a key role in this murder. ..

In our last Briefing Note, we concluded by asserting that “It is doubtful whether [OPCW’s] reputation as an impartial monitor of compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention can be restored without radical reform of its governance and working practices”. The new information we have removes all doubt that the organization has been hijacked at the top by France, UK and the US. We have no doubt that most OPCW staff continue to do their jobs professionally, and that some who are uneasy about the direction that the organization has taken nevertheless wish to protect its reputation. However what is at stake here is more than the reputation of the organization: the staged incident in Douma provoked a missile attack by the US, UK and France on 14 April 2018 that could have led to all-out war.

The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass murder. We think that in most jurisdictions the legal duty to disclose the cover-up of such a crime would override any confidentiality agreement with an employer. We would welcome legal opinions on this, given publicly, by those with relevant expertise. OPCW employees have to sign a strict confidentiality agreement, and face instant dismissal and loss of pension rights if they breach this agreement. We would welcome any initiative to set up a legal defence fund for OPCW staff members who come forward publicly as whistleblowers.

 
I, for one, am shocked that the official narrative on WMDs in the Middle East turned out to be false. But I'm sure next time they'll tell us the truth.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pinkham13
Chinese Elite Paid Hunter and the Biden’s 31 million
3 4 5
Replies
206
Views
4K
The Commish
The Commish
ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
997
ren hoek
ren hoek
Max Power
Fears of a second Civil War
8 9 10
Replies
453
Views
8K
BassNBrew
BassNBrew

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top