Disaster in the Making

Remember when President Obama began secret arming foreign agents in Syria with the direct objective of overthrowing the UN-recognized government there?

Remember Ambassador Stevens, President Obama's point man on that mission, being killed in Benghazi, there to meet with his Turkish government arms-importing-into-Syria counterpart?

Remember when President Obama started secretly inserting SOF into Syria, with the direct objective of assisting the foreign agents he'd armed to overthrow the UN-recognized government in Syria?

Remember statist warmongers demanding that President Obama do even more militarily in Syria?

Remember President Obama stating he couldn't constitutionally do anything more without Congressional approval?

Remember President Obama going to Congress seeking its approval to do just that?

Remember Congress refusing to vote on the issue at all?

Remember President Obama going ahead with his existing military actions in Syria, anyway?

Remember any of President Obama's socialist/progressive/Democrat supporters here on the GB speaking out against him arming foreign agents and inserting SOF with the direct objective of overthrowing the UN-recognized government of Syria?

Remember any of the same bozos speaking out against President Obama when one of his previous direct objectives was overthrowing the UN-recognized government of Libya? Another instance of Congress actively remaining silent.

Remember when President Trump took Office and immediately recentered President Obama's direct objective operations in Syria from overthrowing its UN-recognized government to driving Daesh military operations out of Syria?

President Obama went to the House for its approval for greater military action in Syria to overthrow its government. The House couldn't even bring it self to vote on the issue, giving President Obama the green light to do it anyway.

And the GB's socialist/progressive/Democrat turdballs now salute a socialist/progressive/Democrat majority in the House condemning President Trump for, righteously citing the Constitution and with any significant Daesh capability in Syria effectively erased, getting militarily out of Syria completely?

Despicable statist warmongers, all.
 
Well said!.

Thanks.
I actually borrowed the idea from LD's link:

This is a good read:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/o...ey-military-action-syria-191012104551443.html
In short, simply by pressuring the PYD into a power-sharing agreement with the KNC, and encouraging it to use its influence in Arab-majority regions of Syria as leverage for autonomy, the US could have guaranteed the stability of northern Syria for years to come, and please Turkey, Iraqi Kurds and Syrian Kurds simultaneously.

Over the last days I limitted myself only to AlJazeera and RT.
I'm anything but pro-Russian/Qatar, but at least they explain the Syrian war a bit.

Btw: This was quite amusing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULPp-QmM-IM
 
Well said!.

I'm actually listening to Crosstalk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92HY7XyQ5vY
and I find this exchange interesting too:


Peter Lavelle: "I find it strangely amusing that you have all these bi-partisan calls to sanction Turkey, because of its illegal behavior!
But nobody mentions that the American troops that are in Syria now, are just as illegal as Turkish troops on Syrian soil."

Walter Smolarek: "The US's presence in Syria is in violation of the sovereign government of Syria. Like him or not, Syria is an independent country, so that makes the US presence illegal.
So the reason why the Corporate media has been so outraged by this development is because it's an unmitigated disaster for the Pentagon and the State Department establishment".
 
America used to be in the business of chopping and dismembering countries, under the motive that they're 'rooting for the underdog.'
 
Yea....highly.

And in some cases, yea, very much so.

Some shit shouldn't be public info, if he has half a brain he'll either get them out of Turkey or park a couple of infantry brigades and some air assets on top of them.

If we have to leave in a hurry, he can send in a couple of F-16s to take out the nukes we have to leave behind. :rolleyes:
 
Lots of twist and turns in that article including:

"In January 2016, his former national-security adviser Michael Flynn told investigative reporter Seymour Hersh that Turkey had not done enough to stop the smuggling of foreign fighters and weapons across the border.

“If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,” Flynn told Hersh in the London Review of Books. “We understood ISIS’ long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.”

Six months after this interview, Flynn would cheer on an attempted coup d’etat in Turkey as “worth clapping for.” Days after that, Flynn secretly served the government he previously wanted to overthrow. The general has since admitted to misleading U.S. authorities about the Turkish government’s ties to his intelligence firm’s $600,000 contract to improve the country’s image abroad."
 
Are we safer than we were a week ago? 🙊

No.

But we weren't any safer a week ago either.

You've done a ton of hand wringing in this thread over our involvement in Syria (which is arguably illegal) and yet somehow seem to believe that killing more Americans makes us "safer".

Tell it to the family of the service members still over there that THEY are "safer" that way.
 
No.

But we weren't any safer a week ago either.

You've done a ton of hand wringing in this thread over our involvement in Syria (which is arguably illegal) and yet somehow seem to believe that killing more Americans makes us "safer".

Tell it to the family of the service members still over there that THEY are "safer" that way.

They are less safe as well. We all are. ;)
 
They are less safe as well. We all are. ;)

So, let me get this straight...

We are, in your view, no "safer" than we were before we began to pull out of Syria. This includes, I suppose, the servicemen in our military since they are part of what's going on.

Yet, at the same time, the servicemen who were in Syria were somehow "more safe" while on the battlefield?

Winking emojii aside, you're kidding, right?

THIS is the essence of why no one is taking your hand wringing seriously. You can't have it both ways. Either we are "safer" or we aren't. In this particular case, neither option changes the equation. Thus, the question becomes; if we are still not "more safe" even when risking lives, then what is the point of risking those lives?

Maintaining the status quo is stupid as long as people keep dying. If people have to die, then I prefer it to be the other guy's team down in the ditch.
 
Back
Top