The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
2mufc0 said:
This isn't abut logistics, he said he would scale back US military around the world and he's doing that, whether you think that's right or wrong is another discussion.
Click to expand...
He says alot of things most of which is nonsense. And it is about the logistics as @KirkDuyt said

"Trump's move is pulling out with less notice than you give a store clerk at Tesco's when you fire him"



That is absolutely true and a logistic nightmare that Trump created by not giving enough time after he decided it was to happen and not even telling the pentagon when he went out on Twitter to announce it. The man is insane
 
ChaddyP said:
No he literally did it in a tweet. The pentagon had no idea. State department had no idea. He just came off a call with Erdoğan Sunday night and sent out the order. Nobody saw it coming. It was completely out of the blue. The man is insane.
Click to expand...
Source?

According to this:

The officials said the US was looking at several options but added it appeared likely the military would pull the majority of its forces in the coming days, instead of weeks. A full withdrawal could take two weeks or more, although even that could happen faster than expected, one official said.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/13/trump-us-troops-northern-syria-turkish-assault-kurds
 
2mufc0 said:
This isn't abut logistics, he said he would scale back US military around the world and he's doing that, whether you think that's right or wrong is another discussion.
Click to expand...
He's not entirely doing that. He's sending more troops to Saudi Arabia. It just seems that there's other things driving these decisions.
 
KirkDuyt said:
He's not entirely doing that. He's sending more troops to Saudi Arabia. It just seems that there's other things driving these decisions.
Click to expand...
For training? or to man bases?
 
2mufc0 said:
This isn't abut logistics, he said he would scale back US military around the world and he's doing that, whether you think that's right or wrong is another discussion.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly this naive?

Your overall point is removed from what’s actually happened.

You must have looked at actual facts and have seen that this withdrawal has been a horror show and is an unprecedented disaster.

If you want to support Trump withdrawing from proxy wars (that they generally initiate) then I support your position.

But you can’t double down on this. It’s abundantly clear that his approach has endangered tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Are you honestly this naive?

Your overall point is removed from what’s actually happened.

You must have looked at actual facts and have seen that this withdrawal has been a horror show and is an unprecedented disaster.

If you want to support Trump withdrawing from proxy wars (that they generally initiate) then I support your position.

But you can’t double down on this. It’s abundantly clear that his approach has endangered tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people.
Click to expand...
That hasn't stopped the US military before has it?

Besides i have already said the situation could have been handled a lot better. The premise of scaling back American intervention i'm behind.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Are you honestly this naive?

Your overall point is removed from what’s actually happened.

You must have looked at actual facts and have seen that this withdrawal has been a horror show and is an unprecedented disaster.

If you want to support Trump withdrawing from proxy wars (that they generally initiate) then I support your position.

But you can’t double down on this. It’s abundantly clear that his approach has endangered tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people.
Click to expand...
Yeah not sure there's a rational argument against this.

It's not incongruous to support troop withdrawal, but only in a well planned, researched and organized way.
 
2mufc0 said:
Source?

According to this:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/13/trump-us-troops-northern-syria-turkish-assault-kurds
Click to expand...


Source was this article

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tu...-syria-us-backed-kurds-have-vowed-all-out-war


On sunday trump said that Turkey was going basically take over certain areas in nothern syria and the US was going to pull back. This is what blindsided everyone. He came off the phone with Erdoğan after being rolled by him and made the decision that the US will pull back as Turkey started the invasion. This is what led the troops to scramble and subsequently blow up there own equiptment. The article you are posting is about what has happened after that. The pentagon is having to clean up this mess within 2 weeks . They are now totally withdrawing from Northern Syria . Its still a shit show. The president is very impulsive and has no clue as to what he's doing. Its all well and fine to want to leave, but its how you do it.
 
2mufc0 said:
That hasn't stopped the US military before has it?

Besides i have already said the situation could have been handled a lot better. The premise of scaling back American intervention i'm behind.
Click to expand...
Its only 1000 troops though. Thats nothing. They arent even "coming home" they are going elsewhere in the region. Its just smokes and mirrors. Meanwhile He is sending more troops to saudi arabia because. Apparently the Saudis are "paying "for them. whatever that means :lol:. Moving the small amount of troops from syria made NO strategic sense other than being able to tell gullible people that the USA bought the troops home which is the furthest thing from the truth.
 
2mufc0 said:
It's interesting how people have saying for years how they hoped the US stopped military campaigns throughout the world, but when it actually happens those same people want them to stay in Syria.
Click to expand...
Come on, don't just repeat a disingenuous MAGA talking point without the context of the current situation in Syria and how this "pulling out" actually happened.
 
ChaddyP said:
Its only 1000 troops though. Thats nothing. They arent even "coming home" they are going elsewhere in the region. Its just smokes and mirrors. Meanwhile He is sending more troops to saudi arabia because. Apparently the Saudis are "paying "for them. whatever that means :lol:. Moving the small amount of troops from syria made NO strategic sense other than being able to tell gullible people that the USA bought the troops home which is the furthest thing from the truth.
Click to expand...
I would say the difference with the Saudi situation as they are being invited by a sovereign nation, also the US and Saudi have an alliance and with the attacks on their oil facilities there are legitimate reason to send troops there. With Syria, i agree it's pretty much backstabbing the Kurds, but in terms of American interests what are they gaining in the long term? Do you really think Turkey and Assad would let the Kurds keep the area they are currently controlling?
 
Amarsdd said:
Come on, don't just repeat a disingenuous MAGA talking point without the context of the current situation in Syria and how this "pulling out" actually happened.
Click to expand...
MAGA!
 
What a farce. Sparking up a volatile region. For me, this is as much of an impeachable offense given the thousands that will die and millions that will be affected as this plays out over the next decade.
 
2mufc0 said:
I would say the difference with the Saudi situation as they are being invited by a sovereign nation, also the US and Saudi have an alliance and with the attacks on their oil facilities there are legitimate reason to send troops there. With Syria, i agree it's pretty much backstabbing the Kurds, but in terms of American interests what are they gaining in the long term? Do you really think Turkey and Assad would let the Kurds keep the area they are currently controlling?
Click to expand...

They sure made it known now that being an ally of America, in this case against ISIS, doesn’t really matter to Americans in the long term.

Countries in the future will think twice before joining up with them in a conflict considering how Trump just threw the Kurds under the bus.
 
2mufc0 said:
I would say the difference with the Saudi situation as they are being invited by a sovereign nation, also the US and Saudi have an alliance and with the attacks on their oil facilities there are legitimate reason to send troops there. With Syria, i agree it's pretty much backstabbing the Kurds, but in terms of American interests what are they gaining in the long term? Do you really think Turkey and Assad would let the Kurds keep the area they are currently controlling?
Click to expand...

You say that the US and Saudis have an alliance and this some how this is the difference with the Kurds? And this is why its better for the USA to send troops to SA and pull out of a strategic area in nothern Syria and abondon actual Allies in the Kurds? And The Saudis somehow need the US forces there to help defend oil facilities because the Saudis dont have a capable military to do so?


I could give you a laundry list of what the Amercians are gaining long term by having a foothold in syria. To somehow say that its better to be in SA than Nothern syria is baffling to me
 
ChaddyP said:
You say that the US and Saudis have an alliance and this some how this is the difference with the Kurds? And this is why its better for the USA to send troops to SA and pull out of a strategic area in nothern Syria and abondon actual Allies in the Kurds? And The Saudis somehow need the US forces there to help defend oil facilities because the Saudis dont have a capable military to do so?


I could give you a laundry list of what the Amercians are gaining long term by having a foothold in syria. To somehow say that its better to be in SA than Nothern syria is baffling to me
Click to expand...
It is different as the Kurds don't form part of a sovereign nation, they are another proxy group in the civil war, technically the US are an occupying force in Syria. And you didn't answer my question, when Assad finishes off the rebels and turns his attention to the Kurds, what happens then? Are the US going to ignite the Syrian war again by fighting the regime? Not to mention , Turkey a NATO ally who consider some of their factions to be a threat to their national security right on their border?
 
Drifter said:
This is Steve Bannon's America ( Capitalism, nationalism, and “Judeo-Christian values). This is why Betsy Devos was chosen as a Secretary Of Education. She as very strong ties to the religious right and a hunger to create private faith schools and use public schools to fund it. The WH as been taken over by a cult.
Click to expand...

Dominionism
 
2mufc0 said:
It is different as the Kurds don't form part of a sovereign nation, they are another proxy group in the civil war, technically the US are an occupying force in Syria.
Click to expand...

i Dont see why that matters in the grand sceme of things. The USA had a stategic reason to be there and had an alliance with the Kurds who were doing most of the ground work fighting for them.

2mufc0 said:
And you didn't answer my question, when Assad finishes off the rebels and turns his attention to the Kurds, what happens then? Are the US going to ignite the Syrian war again by fighting the regime? Not to mention , Turkey a NATO ally who consider some of their factions are a threat to their national security right on their border?
Click to expand...
Currently the Kurds were forced to form an alliance with Assad brokered by the russians. Russia is now getting the foot hold they wanted in syria. Its a complete shit show. Turkey were never going to attack US forces Protecting the Kurds. Trump was a coward and called Turkeys bluff. There was no reason to come out of Syria in the way Trump did. its now a complicated shit show and the only one smiling at the end is Moscow
 
ChaddyP said:
i Dont see why that matters in the grand sceme of things. The USA had a stategic reason to be there and had an alliance with the Kurds who were doing most of the ground work fighting for them.

Currently the Kurds were forced to form an alliance with Assad brokered by the russians. Russia is now getting the foot hold they wanted in syria. Its a complete shit show. Turkey were never going to attack US forces Protecting the Kurds. Trump was a coward and called Turkeys bluff. There was no reason to come out of Syria in the way Trump did. its now a complicated shit show and the only one smiling at the end is Moscow
Click to expand...
It matters because you are comparing SA with the Kurds. And being an occupying force, means they shouldn't really be there.

How about we end trying to get footholds in other countries? (same goes with Russia and any other country) . This goes back to my point about the people who are anti imperialists, whether they realise themselves they are actually advocating imperialism now.

The second half doesn't answer my question again, hypothetically, if the US remained in the long term what would they do?
 
Last edited:
ChaddyP said:
i Dont see why that matters in the grand sceme of things. The USA had a stategic reason to be there and had an alliance with the Kurds who were doing most of the ground work fighting for them.

Currently the Kurds were forced to form an alliance with Assad brokered by the russians. Russia is now getting the foot hold they wanted in syria. Its a complete shit show. Turkey were never going to attack US forces Protecting the Kurds. Trump was a coward and called Turkeys bluff. There was no reason to come out of Syria in the way Trump did. its now a complicated shit show and the only one smiling at the end is Moscow
Click to expand...
Also I would also add, if the US really wanted a foothold/ally in Syria they had a chance during the civil war and that was Obama's call, so wonder if you are just as critical of him.
 
2mufc0 said:
How about we end trying to get footholds in other countries? (same goes with Russia and any other country) .
Click to expand...
the problem with that is.... Now Russia has taken over the bases that the United States left behind. Its like you're thinking once you leave there the common folk will rise up and take over there land and all will be well again. Russian troops have now basically swapped places with the Americans. This makes sense how exactly?


2mufc0 said:
The second half doesn't answer my question again, hypothetically, if the US remained in the long term what would they do?
Click to expand...
They would be stopping Russia from occupying Northern Syria, they would stop Erdoğan from committing genocide, they would continue to keep the isis prisoners in the jail, stopping a war from happening and general destabilisation in the middle East. This is why they were there. It was only 1000 troops. The USA have more troops doing drills in South Korea.


Vladimir Putin is an expansionist leader and is looking to expand Russia and become an empire once again. Its his biggest goal. Now the USA has basically given him a foothold in the middle East to expand something they haven't had since the 60s before the soviet collapse.

You may think you live in a world where once the USA brings all the troops home all will be well with the world but that's simply not the case.



Edit : this doesn't even include how great this is for Iran and how this affects Israel.
 
Last edited:
It was certainly a cheap way to stay engaged in the region. The Kurds do most of the ground fighting, the US just had to embed SF and provide fire support (aircraft + artillery) and barely even any QRF capabilities. A rational leader would have at least gotten something in exchange from the other parties involved, in order to leave.
 
There was no plan for the isis jails that the Kurds were wardens for. Now they are out and are hell bent on creating massacres world wide.

But hey libs think it's better to retreat the troops and stop "occupying" Why not just take the USA troops out of South Korea too while you're at it. Let's watch the Koreas have at it
 
MTF said:
It was certainly a cheap way to stay engaged in the region. The Kurds do most of the ground fighting, the US just had to embed SF and provide fire support (aircraft + artillery) and barely even any QRF capabilities. A rational leader would have at least gotten something in exchange from the other parties involved, in order to leave.
Click to expand...
Imagine giving Assad his sweetest wet dream for free :lol: the man literally waked up Monday morning with the greatest gift he could have thought of. The resistance force of the Kurds, the one thorn in his side from keeping him from rising up again, are not just there for the taking, they are being forced to surrender everything in a bid to stay off the turks from slaughtering them.


But hey.... Trump brought the troops home.. USA USA!
 
ChaddyP said:
the problem with that is.... Now Russia has taken over the bases that the United States left behind. Its like you're thinking once you leave there the common folk will rise up and take over there land and all will be well again. Russian troops have now basically swapped places with the Americans. This makes sense how exactly?



They would be stopping Russia from occupying Northern Syria, they would stop Erdoğan from committing genocide, they would continue to keep the isis prisoners in the jail, stopping a war from happening and general destabilisation in the middle East. This is why they were there. It was only 1000 troops. The USA have more troops doing drills in South Korea.


Vladimir Putin is an expansionist leader and is looking to expand Russia and become an empire once again. Its his biggest goal. Now the USA has basically given him a foothold in the middle East to expand something they haven't had since the 60s before the soviet collapse.

You may think you live in a world where once the USA brings all the troops home all will be well with the world but that's simply not the case.



Edit : this doesn't even include how great this is for Iran and how this affects Israel.
Click to expand...

Russia is in Syria because they have been invited by their government to assist in the civil war, of course Russia will benefit in having an ally in Syria but ultimately they are fighting on behalf of the Syrian government so they can reclaim their land. So no, Russia are not occupying Syria. .

The US never had bases in Syria before the civil war, why do they need them now? What's so bad about Syria reclaiming control of their country? Like i said above, Obama had a chance for regime change but decided against it, so why complain now?

As for foreign ISIS prisoners, why is Trump wrong in saying their origin countries should take them back and prosecute them?

So your idea is for the US to occupy NE Syria without any plan to exit.


stopping a war from happening and general destabilisation in the middle East.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious, the US being a stabilising force in the ME :lol:
 
Last edited:
ChaddyP said:
There was no plan for the isis jails that the Kurds were wardens for. Now they are out and are hell bent on creating massacres world wide.

But hey libs think it's better to retreat the troops and stop "occupying" Why not just take the USA troops out of South Korea too while you're at it. Let's watch the Koreas have at it
Click to expand...
You don't seem to grasp what sovereignty is, do you? US bases are in South Korea with permission of the Korean gov, therefore it's not an occupation.
 
ChaddyP said:
Imagine giving Assad his sweetest wet dream for free :lol: the man literally waked up Monday morning with the greatest gift he could have thought of. The resistance force of the Kurds, the one thorn in his side from keeping him from rising up again, are not just there for the taking, they are being forced to surrender everything in a bid to stay off the turks from slaughtering them.


But hey.... Trump brought the troops home.. USA USA!
Click to expand...
And this isn't even what's happening. They are just being relocated to Iraq.
 
2mufc0 said:
Russia is in Syria because they have been invited by their government to assist in the civil war
Click to expand...
:lol:


2mufc0 said:
The US never had bases in Syria before the civil war, why do they need them now?
Click to expand...
I have gone through why the usa presence is needed there already lets nopt go in circels

2mufc0 said:
What's so bad about Syria reclaiming control of their country?
Click to expand...
Wait ... Syria reclaiming control...or Assad?

2mufc0 said:
Like i said above, Obama had a chance for regime change but decided against it, so why complain now?
Click to expand...
Obama failed miserably in the ME and alot of these problems being faced are becuase of him. That doesnt mean that things have to be made worse? who says im complaining just now?


2mufc0 said:
As for foreign ISIS prisoners, why is Trump wrong in saying their origin countries should take them back and prosecute them?
Click to expand...

no he's not wrong it doesnt mean you fecking let them loose. Thats insane.
2mufc0 said:
So your idea is for the US to occupy NE Syria without any plan to exit.
Click to expand...

Yes as they were bascially there as a strategic placement to keep relative peace and stop genocide amonst the other vast amount of things ive listed. If some other plan was formed to avoid everything that was predicted to have happened in the last 2 weeks then fine by all means withdraw. The cost for keeping them there was miniscule to what it actually helped achieve. You make it sound like there were 100k troops there. Your idea seems to be that they shouldnt be there becuase Asaad didnt sent them an invite which is insane to me.
 
Last edited:
Redplane said:
Haha did he really say that?
Click to expand...

The photo seems to be from the point at which Trump was talking about Syria having "lots of sand they can play with." She's really just a poor sod trying her damnedest to write a verbatim transcript. At that moment she was surprised to hear the word "sand" being mentioned so started looking for clues. As she does so the dumb feck repeated the word and she got back to transcribing.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
The photo seems to be from the point at which Trump was talking about Syria having "lots of sand they can play with." She's really just a poor sod trying her damnedest to write a verbatim transcript. At that moment she was surprised to hear the word "sand" being mentioned so started looking for clues. As she does so the dumb feck repeated the word and she got back to transcribing.
Click to expand...
Ha thanks for the clarification. The sad thing is that in a way I didn't doubt for a second he could have said the other thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.