So your stance is that all Obama mistakes are his, and all Trump's mistakes are Obama's because Obama didn't fix it first.
Bold strategy.
Can you hold your leader accountable for anything?
Abandoning the Kurds
- Thread starter indy35
- Start date
So your stance is that all Obama mistakes are his, and all Trump's mistakes are Obama's because Obama didn't fix it first.
Bold strategy.
Can you hold your leader accountable for anything?
BBC published an unflattering Viewpoint on the damage that the Kurd issue could visit on the President.
Sir: You're illiterate. You're not someone without intelligence. You just don't have the ability to read something, enabling you to process it so that you can understand its meaning.
Have someone ELSE read these posts to you, I would suggest.
Then, for instance, you'll be able to avoid the embarrassment of continuing to suggest that the Obama decision to not respond to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons on Syrian residential communities , many years ago, has one F'G thing to do with the situation, today, with regard to the Syrian Kurds and the Turkish military. Can you round off to the nearest DOZEN the number of times someone will have to beat this into your head before you might come to the realization ??
And, try to type ONE POST without referring to Obama or the Clintons. ONE . BethBoilerfan & I will buy you an ice cream cone, if you can.
Last edited:
There are now reports notwithstanding purported previous agreement to meet with a U.S. led delegation headed by V.P. Pence, Secy. Of State and National Security Advisor, that Turkish strongman Erdogan is refusing to meet them to discuss Syria and the Kurds. I guess this is a demonstration of how the world really respects the U.S. again...
Edit... the cynic in me harbors the thought that this may be some reality TV moment pre-concocted scenario between Trump and Erdogan to let the Pres. step in as the supreme negotiator...
EDIT 2 - In an about face Erdogan is now willing to meet with VP Pence. Nothing better than flying blind in today's diplmatic world.
Edit... the cynic in me harbors the thought that this may be some reality TV moment pre-concocted scenario between Trump and Erdogan to let the Pres. step in as the supreme negotiator...
EDIT 2 - In an about face Erdogan is now willing to meet with VP Pence. Nothing better than flying blind in today's diplmatic world.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="BleedinGold, post: 2335901, member: 626"
Can you hold your leader accountable for anything?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. I'm not crazy about leaving the Kurds and I'm glad we're supporting them with air power. And I wish, though it's his biggest weapon, he'd dump the twitter. Again, had BHO had any sack at all, we might not be in this position today.
Can you hold your leader accountable for anything?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. I'm not crazy about leaving the Kurds and I'm glad we're supporting them with air power. And I wish, though it's his biggest weapon, he'd dump the twitter. Again, had BHO had any sack at all, we might not be in this position today.
Absolutely. I'm not crazy about leaving the Kurds and I'm glad we're supporting them with air power. And I wish, though it's his biggest weapon, he'd dump the twitter. Again, had BHO had any sack at all, we might not be in this position today.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, should have...geez, Trump is the president now and all hell broke loose when he ordered the withdrawal of the remaining 1k of troops.
I have seen a few things online where Trumpers are trying to discredit the Kurds. I guess that's going to be the strategy going forward. They don't deserve our protection anyway.
Twin: President Obama's "red line" statement was made in 2012.
Check your calendar: this is 2019.
Would you like someone to send you the unabridged, unedited US government accounts of EVERYTHING that has occurred in the militarily contested areas of the Middle East in the LAST SEVEN YEARS ??!!
After reading those 20,000 pages, do you think it might be possible for you to swallow your foolish ONE SENTENCE conclusion that the current 2019 mess can be laid at the feet of Obama ??
Or can you not resist the opportunity to use your word "sack" one more time ??
Check your calendar: this is 2019.
Would you like someone to send you the unabridged, unedited US government accounts of EVERYTHING that has occurred in the militarily contested areas of the Middle East in the LAST SEVEN YEARS ??!!
After reading those 20,000 pages, do you think it might be possible for you to swallow your foolish ONE SENTENCE conclusion that the current 2019 mess can be laid at the feet of Obama ??
Or can you not resist the opportunity to use your word "sack" one more time ??
I have no doubt you are right. I was just listening to President speaking to reporters and he commented about Kurds that "they aren't angels, " again.
He's putting in another bid for the Nobel Piece prize in that video.
Just listened to every word of it.
Jones' description of it being " rambling mess of self-pity word salad "........could honestly be amended about two more notches up on the Insanity Scale....
Apparently if the Kurds were willing to pay for our sops to remain in Syria Trump would be ok with it.
Maybe, should have...geez, Trump is the president now and all hell broke loose when he ordered the withdrawal of the remaining 1k of troops.[/QUOTE]
No Bill, all hell broke lose when Obama showed he had no sack and let Russia and Syrian leaders cow tow him into doing nothing.
I know he's an idiot. He's played too much golf without wearing a helmet.
A perfectly beautiful letter written by a clearly stable genius with a large brain who went to the best schools.
-Pretty much agree in regard to Turkey. Important location on a map but they do nothing beyond that.
-Well, in regard to Trump consulting EU/England/NATO, they really do not do much, minus England. Not sure why that would change.
-As far as this decision in the ME taking the cake with horrible decisions this is not even a blip on the radar.
In last thirty years alone these decisions are worse-
BushI-Not taking care of Iraq when he had the alliance
Clinton-Not addressing Al Qaeda/ Afghanistan and their financing even though DoD, intel, and SF matrix were warning of the situation and they had tried to blow up the WTC a few times before it fell.
BushII-Basically made Afghanistan a second priority to focus on Iraq, then Iraq itself. Not taking the Taliban surrender in Fall 2001/Winter2002. Negotiating troops leaving from Iraq.
Obama-Leaving Iraq, the US allowing MKhadafi to be replaced with no succession plan in Libya, dragging out war in Afghanistan after bin Laden killed, the entire red line in the sand ordeal
For me the stupid decision that takes the cake in the ME was any of those aforementioned. This Kurd situation may evantually get there but if Trump says everybody is coming home and we are done with the ME that is much smarter than any of the above.
All for why I tend to support coming home. Bonehead decision after boneheaded decision.
Last edited:
Haha no crap they are not angels. In that part of the world, if they acted like angels, they would have been forced out of the world long ago.
They did fight with the us though. Which is more than I can say for a NATO ally in the region.
Either get involved and help them out or come home.
We've all seen more professionalism in a letter between a town councilman and the building inspector......
The mess that's existed in the Middle East for centuries.
Were only 97 around to solve all their intractable, brutal problems before the above (revisionist history) occurred !!.
What could possibly keep the country's premier think tanks from making you a Senior Fellow ??
There is nothing what I posted that is revisionist. It all happened. And many, if not all, occurred while President/Civilians ignored DoD, JCOS, intel, etc.
As for me, I was, and to a small degree still am a fighter on the ground in this game. Those senior think tank fellows reach out to us quite often. They do not rely on anonymous quotes from officials that newspapers quote for situational awareness.
I'm not sure playing the comparison game does much to alleviate the situation. But you're not worried about this situation or what it may lead to right? So making it seem less important by playing MMQB with the past seems to be the way to go.
So being done with the ME means we should bring home the troops in SA and Oman and the UAE and Qatar right? We have no national interests there. It's not like the ME is the home of radical Islamic fundamentalism........or has the largest oil reserves of oil in the world. We've got plenty of oil and ISIS has been defeated. No need to worry about what happens down the road.
Why not bring all the troops home? NATO doesn't really do much except take advantage of us, just bring them home. And why do we spend all that money on a military presence in the far east? Or Africa? I mean, Diego Garcia? Seagulls and sand in the middle of the Indian ocean.
I really have no desire to get in a crap throwing contest.
I will just say that I responded to a post by Bruce that stated, "It is amazing how many times in the Middle East the US continues to make horrible decisions like this but this one takes the cake." I listed several decisions, lack of decisions, actions, or inactions of the last 30 years that are clearly worse for the USA. From both parties I would add. Of course, Bruce is entitled to his opinion. I also stated in my post that this decision may evantually get to that level for the US, but not sure I see it.
I have said more than once that no US soldier should die defending a Saudi Arabian(or any ME country) oil field.
I would like for the US to ramp up energy 'independence' and decrease interests in the ME. It is a never ending game, with unclear goals, and really no winner or long term good decisions. History shows that.
As for radical Islamic fundamentalism that is a different topic. I think that when the US catches wind of a plan, terror camps being set up, financing set up etc the US should go in and take it out. That is why I think there always be a contingent in Afghanistan. And there is a need for foreign bases to execute that plan. That is a far cry from getting involved in wars, especially wars between countries that have a religous basis.
instead of the virtually impossible tasks of solving problems that were essentially unsolveable.
I agree with this. Another example would be supporting the mujahideen. Seemed like a great idea at the time to many. If the problems are unsolveable, or come back as failures maybe a decade later, at what point is enough, enough?
The United States is stuck with a neverending set of decisions involving sovereign states, religions and ethnic groups that have what is seemingly an infinite # of push/pull options - in that part of the world.
Other than Divine guidance, can't see how " enough is enough" ever leads to ending the futility.
I did jump quickly there, my bad.
This does seem like a minor blip at this point, but no one knows the true ramifications, as you eluded to. But the signals that have been sent are anything but good. Iran, Turkey, Syria.......and especially Russia, all their positions got stronger because of this action. Our reputation has been damaged. The US is coming across as weak and indecisive......and that does have long term consequences.
I saw a quote from a retreating soldier that said we would be back on 5 years. May be true, maybe not, but it's clear the long term was not thoroughly considered before this decision was made. That was part of the problem in some of the examples you gave. This was a political decision, not a strategic one.
And to be clear, there was no war. We weren't in the middle of one. We were preventing one. And yes, I think sometimes that is our job, especially in such an important region and where an important ally like Israel is threatened.
Intelligent people can debate the policy, but it can't be argued the decision was hastily arrived at with little to no consultation, poorly implemented.......and looks especially so with the damage control the admin is currently engaged in.
I've been detained for a while and didn't read all the posts in this thread so I'm sorry if some of this has been discussed.
Trump pulled out 1000 troops. Special ops guys. WTF were 1000 troops going to do to stop Turkey from coming across the border?
Trump had been in contact with Turkey and couldn't convince them to not attack. He obviously didn't negotiate a good deal here.
So Trump had 2 options after the negotiations failed. Pull out or reinforce.
Remember our main objective to defeat ISIS in Syria has been accomplished and this move by Turkey won't IMO, let ISIS back in.
A little recent history:
On 24 August 2016, the Turkish armed forces, supported by the U.S., began a declared direct military intervention into Syria. On 24 August 2016, after 2 days of artillery bombardment and airstrikes, the Turkish Land Forces launched an attack on the ISIL-held town of Jarabulus, followed by hundreds of FSA fighters.
For the incursion of Turkey's military into Syria that began in August 2016, see Operation Euphrates Shield. For the incursion of Turkey's military into Syria that began in January 23 2009 2018, see Operation Olive Branch. For the incursion of Turkey's military into north-eastern Syria that began in October 2019, see 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. For the occupation of north-western Syria by Turkey since 2016, see Turkish occupation of northern Syria
So Trump had 2 options after the negotiations failed. Pull out or reinforce.
I prefer the pull out option. Maybe I'm a little biased here because in Nov of 2016 my son was on his way to Syria but was called back.
Just my 2 cents.
Trump pulled out 1000 troops. Special ops guys. WTF were 1000 troops going to do to stop Turkey from coming across the border?
Trump had been in contact with Turkey and couldn't convince them to not attack. He obviously didn't negotiate a good deal here.
So Trump had 2 options after the negotiations failed. Pull out or reinforce.
Remember our main objective to defeat ISIS in Syria has been accomplished and this move by Turkey won't IMO, let ISIS back in.
A little recent history:
On 24 August 2016, the Turkish armed forces, supported by the U.S., began a declared direct military intervention into Syria. On 24 August 2016, after 2 days of artillery bombardment and airstrikes, the Turkish Land Forces launched an attack on the ISIL-held town of Jarabulus, followed by hundreds of FSA fighters.
For the incursion of Turkey's military into Syria that began in August 2016, see Operation Euphrates Shield. For the incursion of Turkey's military into Syria that began in January 23 2009 2018, see Operation Olive Branch. For the incursion of Turkey's military into north-eastern Syria that began in October 2019, see 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. For the occupation of north-western Syria by Turkey since 2016, see Turkish occupation of northern Syria
So Trump had 2 options after the negotiations failed. Pull out or reinforce.
I prefer the pull out option. Maybe I'm a little biased here because in Nov of 2016 my son was on his way to Syria but was called back.
Just my 2 cents.
So Turkey was going to attack an area occupied by a fellow NATO member? The USA had no choice but to let Turkey dictate what our options were? Really?
