Trump pulls US out of Syria; GOP Senators object (1 Viewer)

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
45,007
Reaction score
58,896
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
Sticky Post
The move comes on the supposed premise that we have "defeated" ISIS - contrary to recent comments made by administration and military officials. Others worry that the US leaving Syria only emboldens al-Assad and Iran in the region. This evening, it appears that GOP Senators, including Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and Marco Rubio have joined in a letter to the president objecting to the move.

President Donald Trump is finally getting his way in Syria. Vehemently opposed to the extended presence of American troops in the war-ravaged country, he had been forced to keep them there longer than he wanted. Not, it seems, anymore.

“We have defeated isis in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency,” Trump said Wednesday on Twitter.

The tweet appeared to confirm news reports that the United States would withdraw the roughly 2,000 American troops stationed in Syria who are fighting the Islamic State group. The U.S.-led anti-isiscoalition has made significant territorial gains against the militant group, but has struggled to completely eliminate isis from a few pockets in Syria.

But if it is carried out, a U.S. pullout leaves open a question of the militants’ resurgence, and would delight at least two of Syria’s neighbors: Iran and Turkey. American soldiers might have been in Syria to fight isis, but they also served as a deterrent to the Islamic Republic, which supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with troops and militia fighters.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/trump-signals-us-troops-will-withdraw-syria/578569/


 

xardoz

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
823
Offline
I am amazed at how the Democrats and those that support them have become war-hawks. (I have grown to expect that from the NeoCons, RINO's and other Republicans.) Is it just because someone told you to hate the POTUS or because you are so afraid of the "T-word".

Is it worth US lives to stay in Syria? We INVADED a country that was NO Threat to the U.S. Now we are pulling out. Y'all sound all scardey-cat. Why? Is it 'cause you do not like Mr. Cheeto? Maybe, y'all are against PEACE! Maybe y'all like murder, most foul.

I, personally, do not like my money (in the form of taxes) going to pay for a useless war in some shirthole country, that IS NOT A THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY. We have killed thousands of civilians in Syria. Not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen the past decade. I am sick of my money going to kill people for no reason. We kill 4x as many civilians as we do "terrorists" - and I put that in quotes as our government loves changing their definition of "terrorist or terrorism" to fit the agenda at hand.

On top of that, it cost several million dollars for every "terrorist" we kill. Is it worth it? Is it worth the innocent human lives that are being destroyed? Can you see that these wars are bankrupting the country?

Do y'all just blindly follow what your handlers tell you?
Are you not a critical thinker?
I was taught you should ALWAYS question authority.... This is one of the few decisions of the POTUS I support.

Maybe if you all saw the blood that was on your hands, you would think differently.
 

xardoz

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
823
Offline
The US entered Afghanistan in 2003 with no exit plan, and in 15 years never did develop a plan. Not even close. Now, with Donny Boy it's just "We're taking our toys and going home, Period" The man has no knowledge of ANY subject much less the intricacies of foreign policy, because foreign policy would mean he must deal with people who don't look, act, talk, and think like him. Trump hasn't the intelligence or the will to do it.
Didn't General Petraeus have the exit plan? You see how he was ushered out, then discredited so they could continue their phony war-plans.
 

Brandon13

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,784
Age
31
Location
Pensacola, FL
Online
I think most left-leaning posters in this thread have pretty much said that they don't have a major issue with reducing troops in the middle East, but the handling of this by Trump is where the criticism mostly was applied.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,438
Reaction score
7,728
Offline
I think most left-leaning posters in this thread have pretty much said that they don't have a major issue with reducing troops in the middle East, but the handling of this by Trump is where the criticism mostly was applied.
Pretty much.

Blowback and unintended consequences are real things and while there are no good options in Syria, there is no need to make the best least bad decisions worse by doing it recklessly. Which is exactly what Trump is doing right now.

For instance one obvious consequence is that you embolden bad actors and exacerbate an already uncontrollable humanitarian crisis and the sort of unrest we see in Europe only gets compounded as far more people than otherwise seek asylum and domestic European politics turns even darker and the sort of wide scale civilian massacres in the region we see get worse. Not saying a more structured exit mitigates all those things, they almost assuredly don't(nor would a full scale nation-building operation for any leftover Neo-cons that aren't full Trumpists now) but they at least open the opportunity to curve and prepare for it. Furthermore your not calling into question the word of America and the mutual trust our country needs to maintain with our network of allies to remain in our capacity economically and militarily.
 
Last edited:

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
21,022
Reaction score
33,224
Location
Lebronto
Offline
this is really two posts. It should be split up accordingly

Part I: A discussion on the merits of occupation, terrorism, and war (which seems to be a valid discussion, on its own merits):

Is it worth US lives to stay in Syria? We INVADED a country that was NO Threat to the U.S. Now we are pulling out.

I, personally, do not like my money (in the form of taxes) going to pay for a useless war in some shirthole country, that IS NOT A THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY. We have killed thousands of civilians in Syria. Not to mention Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen the past decade. I am sick of my money going to kill people for no reason. We kill 4x as many civilians as we do "terrorists" - and I put that in quotes as our government loves changing their definition of "terrorist or terrorism" to fit the agenda at hand.

On top of that, it cost several million dollars for every "terrorist" we kill. Is it worth it? Is it worth the innocent human lives that are being destroyed? Can you see that these wars are bankrupting the country?
Part II: Sanctimonious self-righteousness and accusations of absence of critical thought of Democrats (which is what this post seems to actually be about, nevermind the fact that all of these melodramatic assignations seem independent of at least some of the discussion at hand):

I am amazed at how the Democrats and those that support them have become war-hawks. (I have grown to expect that from the NeoCons, RINO's and other Republicans.) Is it just because someone told you to hate the POTUS or because you are so afraid of the "T-word".

Y'all sound all scardey-cat. Why? Is it 'cause you do not like Mr. Cheeto? Maybe, y'all are against PEACE! Maybe y'all like murder, most foul.

Do y'all just blindly follow what your handlers tell you?

Are you not a critical thinker?

Maybe if you all saw the blood that was on your hands, you would think differently.
So what's your purpose, here? I'll pick up your Hamlet thread to ask the question, then:

"Dost thou come here to whine" or for a discussion? Because if it's just an opportunistic rant, then be straightforward and we can all play the game, for "I'll rant as well as thou."

So far, it looks like little more than the "pitiful ambition" of a "fool" and I expect that it'll be like other posts - (from Macbeth) - a scathing post "full of sound and fury" ultimately "signifying nothing" and then a disappearance

in all seriousness, there is a discussion going on already and you could respond to any number of posters who have been discussing it. Instead, you ignored all of them and decided to go all in with your anti-Democratic rambling.

Critical thinking includes some sort of evaluation of the landscape so that you can understand what's going on before leaping in, which you refused to do. Critical thinking requires setting aside preconceived notions and assumptions, which you didn't do. Critical thinking requires avoiding rhetorical traps and being aware of generalizations that cloud your ability to discern, which you didn't do. And so on.

If you want to chide others for critical thinking, you might want to consider employing some yourself
 
Last edited:

UriUT

Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
348
Reaction score
447
Offline
Didn't General Petraeus have the exit plan? You see how he was ushered out, then discredited so they could continue their phony war-plans.
I thought he was fired and indicted because he was having an affair with his publisher and revealed national secrets to her. Got a pretty lenient sentence too, right? Should I stay away from mainstream media sources to get this info?
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
26,516
Reaction score
17,121
Offline
It was Putin's stated goal yes. However, I doubt it was the main thrust or even a priority. Assad knew the West's intentions of supporting his more moderate opposition. As such, there was a silent agreement that Assad and ISIL not to engage while the two factions attacked those moderate opposition. The Russians entered and continued to bomb those moderate factions. We complained but had not any real power to stop those bombardments. All the while, Putin never seriously planned, attacked, nor cooperated in attacking ISIS. Of course, we can support Putin's lies by stating that the "moderate" opposition were terrorists in Assad's eyes and all is forgiven.

To the hegemony question, losing Syria may not be the end of the world. Rather we never had it after we decided not to intervene. This puts a lot of pressure on the Saudis though. That may not be a bad thing. They've gone rogue on us by invading Yemen. But let's not forget the real reason why we have troops in Syria. It is to destroy ISIL. Assad won't do it. Certaintly not the Russians. We made this mess by invading Iraq without any real occupation plans. As have been stated, whether you like this move or not, a president who takes actions without deliberate and well informed thoughts puts us at risk. He said ISIS was destroyed and then said it's not. He was impulsive while chatting with Erdogan and threw his hands in the air, claiming "it's yours". How bad would it be to ask your military leaders the timeline. Our presence was minimal and effective. It had a relatively low risk of casualties. They were mostly advisers and support, and not mainline attack forces. Instead, he bent to external pressures and not for our good (destroying a breeding ground for militant islam). If he were to take this action, why not withdraw all our troops who are fighting militant islam from Africa? That is dangerous considering he caved to pressures from Erdogan and Putin without deep consideration.
"Losing Syria"?

When was it anyone's to lose?

This is a discredited way of viewing the world, and the mindset that leads us into the boondoggles.
 

UriUT

Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
348
Reaction score
447
Offline
"Losing Syria"?

When was it anyone's to lose?

This is a discredited way of viewing the world, and the mindset that leads us into the boondoggles.
Are you implying that "losing" and "gaining" is akin to some imperial conquest? Like we gained the Philippines as some colony? Because I am thinking more in terms of influences and how much we can influence them to more favorable policies for the US. For example, as much as I was opposed to the Iraq war, we gained influences on their matter. We didn't gain their oil fields nor lands. Just as we didn't lose out on making a profit on their oil. We offered them self determination and they rejected the offer of permanent US bases without legal jeopardy. The iraqis knew that we were the moderating force. their president at the time was heavily influenced by the iranians and pushed us out to their detriment. You can say we lost Iraq somewhat. Just as in Syria. At the early point in the Syrian revolt, we could've intervened on humanitarian grounds. I am ambivalent on this. We could've gained influences if we helped the moderates win. However, would they be willing to accept and adopt liberalism? Iraq and Libya has shown that not accepting this liberalism part and just adopting democracy is treacherous territory.
 

jboss

All-Pro
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
302
Age
30
Online
This is absolutely a good thing. Just because Trump is doing it doesn't mean it isn't the right move. A dead giveaway is all the natsec warhawks and neolibs filling their diapers over this.
 

Brandon13

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
1,784
Age
31
Location
Pensacola, FL
Online
This is absolutely a good thing. Just because Trump is doing it doesn't mean it isn't the right move. A dead giveaway is all the natsec warhawks and neolibs filling their diapers over this.
I don't think it's "absolutely" a good thing.

I've wanted troops out of the region for a long time and have thought it's in our best interests but I have to concede that there's certainly a chance that things don't go as I hope and that a perpetual game of whack-a-mole must be played.

But like I said, I'm more than willing to see how this, and for that matter further reductions in troop levels in the region, will turn out.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
41,272
Reaction score
33,864
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I'm not a war hawk, however, if you're in a place, you should complete the mission and have a plan to keep the location stable. We've created too many power vacuums over our history. I also think announcing it over Twitter without discussing or making a decision with the DoD, Joint Chiefs or your Security Council is just dangerous.

How did we get here?

I'd have to search for it, but I'd like to think I was downplaying ISIS's (or ISIL's) threat level. I thought it was being over played and people were taking this idea that they'd be coming here and beheading all of our families way too far.

The guardian is considered center left, but very good with facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/10/media-lapdog-sold-war-in-iraq

The imminent Khorasan attack justified the ensuing U.S. bombing. However, it was later reported that Khorasan – if it even exists – is just a handful of militants whose plans were not so imminent. Few media bothered to follow up on that aspect of the story.

Why has the media pushed the Obama administration’s war frame instead of playing the role of skeptic by questioning official assertions, insisting for corroboration on “anonymous leaks” and seeking alternative points of view? After years of government lies – from claims of WMDs in Iraq to zero civilian casualties in drone strikes – you’d think the members of the fourth estate would have learned a lesson.

But the mainstream US media plays the role of government lapdog more than watchdog.

They sensationalized the supposed threat from Isis even as intelligence agencies insisted that the group poses no immediate threat to the United States. A chorus of fearmongers, Republicans and Democrats alike, appeared on TV to insist that the American way of life is at stake. The hysterical Senator Lindsey Graham claimed that Isis is out to murder each and every one of us. Senator Bill Nelson advocated cutting off the “head of the snake” before Isis could fly its black flag over the White House. Former CIA and Pentagon chief Leon Panetta warned Americans to brace for a 30-year crusade. The media even trotted out “experts” on war – or at least war-mongering – like John McCain, Dick Cheney and even former presidential envoy to Iraq, Paul Bremer.

Obsessed with maintaining access to power, the mainstream media just keeps handing their megaphone to the powerful and self-interested. Rarely do we hear from people who opposed the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq or rightly predicted the chaos that would result from NATO intervention in Libya. The few anti-war voices who manage to slip into the dialogue are marginalized and later silenced.

Let’s face it: fear sells, violence sells, war sells. The vicious Isis beheadings, discussed ad infinitum, attracted large audiences. So did talk about exploding toothpaste. People whipped into a state of fear always want to know more.
It's also interesting that when Trump did his air strikes in 2017, many democrats and Libertarians were upset that he did so without Congressional Approval. Pelosi wanted Congress back in session to debate allowing force in a sovereign nation.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/syria-strike-nancy-pelosi-congress-resolution-236994

That being said, I didn't take the time to look if that ever happened, or how that vote/debate went.
 
Last edited:

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,265
Reaction score
16,545
Age
47
Location
Between here and there
Offline
Fear and paranoia. Seems to be the way the government works anymore. Iraq was no threat to the US. Neither did Libya. Syria is of no threat either. Neither is this invading horde of murders and rapists coming from Mexico. But it’s how politicians keep their sponsors happy and keep money flowing into the military complex. Or to create profits for their buddies, think Cheney and Halliburton. I wonder which of Trumps buddies is in line to get the contract to build the wall? Anyway, off topic only slightly. The monetary corruption of policy is where we are sitting
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,771
Reaction score
17,032
Offline
Fear and paranoia. Seems to be the way the government works anymore. Iraq was no threat to the US. Neither did Libya. Syria is of no threat either. Neither is this invading horde of murders and rapists coming from Mexico. But it’s how politicians keep their sponsors happy and keep money flowing into the military complex. Or to create profits for their buddies, think Cheney and Halliburton. I wonder which of Trumps buddies is in line to get the contract to build the wall? Anyway, off topic only slightly. The monetary corruption of policy is where we are sitting
Yep.

It’s not even like there is a super villain sitting back rubbing his hands together.

The system has been nudged in the direction of the interests with most money, and we’ve not been willing enough to stop it from happening. At some point we lose the ability to stop it.
 

mjcouvi

Hi
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
4,687
Reaction score
3,773
Offline
Withdrawing from Syria is probably the best thing Trump has done as Prez. I don't like much of his crap, but this I can get behind.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,771
Reaction score
17,032
Offline
Withdrawing from Syria is probably the best thing Trump has done as Prez. I don't like much of his crap, but this I can get behind.
We’ve been drawing down our troops in the Middle East for a while. It’s a process, but the general direction has been towards fewer troops deployed. Having those guys in Syria was part of that process.

Now we’re going to leave a situation that is going to result in another humanitarian crisis, and likely end up forcing some type of broader conflict.

Supporting our withdrawal from the Middle East, and supporting Trumps twitter proclamation that we were leaving after seeking only the advice of an authoritarian are totally different things.
 

mjcouvi

Hi
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
4,687
Reaction score
3,773
Offline
We’ve been drawing down our troops in the Middle East for a while. It’s a process, but the general direction has been towards fewer troops deployed. Having those guys in Syria was part of that process.

Now we’re going to leave a situation that is going to result in another humanitarian crisis, and likely end up forcing some type of broader conflict.

Supporting our withdrawal from the Middle East, and supporting Trumps twitter proclamation that we were leaving after seeking only the advice of an authoritarian are totally different things.
I don't see things as you do. I think withdrawal is a good thing. The more withdrawal the better, the less withdrawal the worse. The US empire has been ******* with the middle east long enough. Any amount of US dis-involvement is something I welcome, for whatever reason.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom