Trump surrenders Syria to ISIS

Muslims will fight Muslims, as they've done for hundreds of years, regardless of what anyone does.
Why don't you revert to an old left wing strategy and form a human shield and protect the Syrians you're so worried about?

 

Raqqa looks like it has been firebombed down to nothing but dead dust, but Raqqa has been liberated.

Unless we're going into mission creep and starting new, big war to take out Assad (and enforce the redline) why would we stay?

 

What a terrible thing to do - using her own words against her. She's done a complete 180 and only because Trump is the president. Nice find.

 

President Trump has never listened to your advice and has no idea who you are.

 

As with so many wars America has been involved in since WWII, I'm not sure there is one. Obama tried hard to avoid getting involved in Syria, though he was under constant pressure to do so. He felt the situation was so confusing and fluid, it was impossible to even identify a party we could trust enough to get involved with. He was right, but we were eventually forced in by the increasing Russian involvement, and the use of bio-weapons by Assad. But it's an awkward place to send our military, and continues to be a wildly unpredictable place to use military force.

 

I'm not a military expert or enthusiast, but I suspect NATO comes close to equaling Russia in military might--though not in every capacity. I know Russia emphasizes tanks as a prime fighting force, while NATO may emphasize other types of force, but I'm pretty confident NATO could face down any Russian attack if forced to do so.

 

NATO does, sure. That's because of us. Europe doesn't. Without us, Europe doesn't have the capability to stand against Russia. The UK, France, and Turkey could probably keep the Russians out of Germany, Romania, and Turkey, but all else would be lost. Scandinavia, Poland, the Baltics, and maybe Hungary and Czechia would fall to the Russians, leaving a long-term diplomatic struggle to be fought in the Balkans and Caucuses.

But they shouldn't need us at all. Again, they dwarf Russia in terms of population size and especially economic strength.

 

That is my point. I don't think we should hold on to the Mideast at all. We should not even try.

If you review the post you are replying to, that is what I am saying.

Hell no. Did you even read the post you are replying to.

You are dead wrong. They number between 20,000 and 30,000 in Iraq and Syria and can easily get reinforcements from the region. Unburdened by territory -- which makes our incompetent President think he has won a great victory -- they are more dangerous than ever. They are now a true guerilla force and can hit and run, and they will strike anywhere in the world, including the U.S. In fact, they have.

Unburdened by territory and cities, they are now a difficult force to defeat because they won't stand and fight.

So, Trump decides to surrender to them and he tells the American people that Erdogan will carry on the fight. Our President really is quite stupid, and it is indeed strange that his followers can't see that.

Really, who are you talking to? In our discussions, this comment is surreal, like it belongs in another posting in another thread.

Did you even read the post you are replying to?

 

You are dead wrong. They number between 20,000 and 30,000 in Iraq and Syria and can easily get reinforcements from the region. Unburdened by territory -- which makes our incompetent President think he has won a great victory -- they are more dangerous than ever. They are now a true guerilla force and can hit and run, and they will strike anywhere in the world, including the U.S. In fact, they have.

Unburdened by territory and cities, they are now a difficult force to defeat because they won't stand and fight.

So, Trump decides to surrender to them and he tells the American people that Erdogan will carry on the fight. Our President really is quite stupid, and it is indeed strange that his followers can't see that.

 

NATO makes it unnecessary for any of the European countries OR us to have to plan resisting Russia by themselves alone. NATO is as good for us--as a military buffer--as it is for the Europeans, and is a critical part of our own security system. I don't begrudge the extra cost for the U.S. supporting NATO. I feel it would be FAR MORE EXPENSIVE for us if we didn't have that powerful NATO buffer with its friendly nations helping us.

 

Your wish to stay in the ME forever is noted.

 

What's truly laughable is you thinking you're an advisor to the president.

 

And yet, we do it alone.

Where? In the Baltics and Poland? Yeah, I agree, useful real estate. And eventually these peoples are going to build a real military. But we have to give them reason to, first. It's important to show a willingness to walk away if the burden is mostly put onto our shoulders, and it is.

We have other things to worry about, especially East Asia. If the Europeans want to help, they need to militarize in such a way that they can defend against Russia alone, and we can focus on China.

Germany alone should be able to hold the Russians back. But they can't, because they won't militarize. This makes them useless.

They're barely helping us. There are four helpful NATO countries, the British, the Turks, the Australians, and the Canadians.

The French really don't want to take an active part in containing the Russians, and the Germans are more keen to improve Russian relations, and they will.

If we don't show a willingness to leave, the Europeans will never be useful allies.

 

Oh for f--ks sake! Before we pounded the sh*t out of them, they controlled a huge piece of eastern Syria and virtually all of western Iraq right up to the outskirts of Baghdad. They controlled major cities. They were committing mass rape and genocide. They had stolen huge quantities of arms and equipment. They were even selling oil. They were touting their victories to the world, as they beheaded helpless captives and burned others alive.

Now? Most of their leaders are dead, along with an estimated 80-100,000 of their fighters. They control virtually no territory. There is no money coming in to them from oil or taxes upon the people. The genocides and mass rapes of entire peoples have stopped. There are no more propaganda videos touting their victories and invincibility.

And you think they're more dangerous now than then?

Laughable. But predictable.

It's all about Trump with you. You even flip-flop your views because, well ... Trump.

Islamic radicals have been a fact of life in the past. They are a fact of life in the present. And they will be a fact of life after you and I dead and gone. Our grandchildren will be dealing with them.

That is not a good enough reason to occupy Syria indefinitely. Period. End of story.

Bullsh*t

 

And yet he also posts

I don't think he knows what he wants other than to be opposed to any move Trump makes.

As I observed above.

 

We were bombing and strafing and supporting the bad guys long before Russia became involved. Putin addressed the UN in that regard in fall 2015. We were bombing for Israel long before that.

 

1. Not true.
2. International relations is NOT an issue one can evaluate by placing a dollar sign in front of it--especially one based on common defense issues questions. It's a realm that demands a spiritual perspective--friendship and human commitment are involved. Base such decisions on monetary concerns & you'ff quickly find yourself alone in the world, and without friends.
3. You sound like you've got it all worked out. You've considered every aspect, and have a solid plan for success. But I'm reminded of John Lennon's famous quip: "Life is what happens while you're making plans." That quote seems to apply to your post quite comfortably. I doubt either Russia or China would be cooperative in anything resembling your plan.
4. Germany was responsible for starting two World Wars, plus exterminating about 5 million Jews out of simple ethnic & racial hatred. I can see why they'd be reluctant to do anything that might hint toward actions taken just prior to WWI & WWII. That still doesn't make them useless. There are many ways to contribute to victory in a military conflict other than sending soldiers & military hardware.
5. I disagree with your conclusion that any of these nations are or would be useless as allies. There a many ways an ally can contribute to success in a military confrontation--not all involving military conflict. And friends in such an environment and/or a sensitive location geographically, can become very valuable indeed as allies. It would be counter productive to take actions that drive them away as friends or allies.

 

It really, really is. Even with the Americans the idea of fighting a war over the Baltic states or Poland looks difficult. Without us, it is impossible.

It's not a question of money, it's a question of commitment. No militaries means no military alliance. NATO is a sham. The Turks matter. The British matter. The French matter. Everyone else is just territory to defend.

I don't understand what you're saying. We don't need the Russians or Chinese to cooperate, we need the Europeans to cooperate. And they won't. This is the foundation of our diplomatic breakdown.

The poor Germans keep losing wars. Not building an army isn't a solution.

It would also be counter productive to defend them when this seems only to give them the impression that they don't need to defend themselves. That's what we've been doing.

With the fall of the USSR, NATO was doomed.

 

The Syrian "rebels" are Al Qaeda, as my link proved, despite your evidence-free pooh poohing. Al Qeada are not our friends.

It wouldn't have to be a debate about semantics if you would stop intentionally using the wrong words.

In no way does pointing out that ISIS fighters living in ISIS territory are already home "ignore the fact that ISIS employs international terrorism". You just pulled that out of your ass. Sure, they employ it. But that doesn't change the fact that the people closest to them, the ones whose land they are usurping, have the greatest motivation to see them wiped out. Nor does it change the fact that the only reason they are still on the battlefield is because the only way they wouldn't be there is if they were dead already. Since they live there. A cease fire isn't a surrender. Everybody knows that.

You don't logic much, huh? The importance of the issue is irrelevant, your argument is invalid for the same reason: a particular opinion isn't bad because a certain person holds it. To pretend as if "you agree with Putin" is even an argument is nothing but defective reasoning.

 

Trump is despicable. He even lies to our troops in hostile lands about their pay raises.

Speaking to our troops at Al Asad Air Base during his surprise visit to Iraq, Trump told the troops: "You protect us. We are always going to protect you. And you just saw that, 'cause you just got one of the biggest pay raises you've ever received. ... You haven't gotten one in more than 10 years. More than 10 years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one. I got you a big one."

In fact, military pay has increased every year for more than three decades.

The basic pay raises since 2007:
1 January 2007: 2.2%
1 April 2007: 0.5%
1 January 2008: 3.5%
1 January 2009: 3.9%
1 January 2010: 3.4%
1 January 2011: 1.4%
1 January 2012: 1.6%
1 January 2013: 1.7%
1 January 2014: 1.0%
1 January 2015: 1.0%
1 January 2016: 1.3%
1 January 2017: 2.1%
1 January 2018: 2.4%

Then our troops were treated to one of Donald's fairy tales.

"They had plenty of people that came up, they said, 'You know, we could make it smaller. We could make it 3%, we could make it 2%, we could make it 4%,'" Trump told the troops about the latest pay raise. " I said, 'No. Make it 10%. Make it more than 10%.'"

'Cause it's been a long time, it's been more than 10 years. Been more than 10 years, that's a long time," Trump said, repeating the false claim.

This man is our President and he has no conscience. How can he lie to our troops like that? There is something seriously wrong with Trump.

 

You mean from your 2015 article. That was never proven and the accusation was part of a conspiracy against Obama by far right groups. Three years later, there is no serious talk about the Syrian rebels being a part of Al Qaeda.

Here is a description of the Syrian rebel movement.

The Syrian opposition (Arabic: المعارضة السورية‎ al-Muʻaraḍatu s-Sūrīyah, [almʊˈʕaːɾadˤɑtu s.suːˈɾɪj.ja]) is an umbrella term for the political structure represented by the Syrian National Coalition and associated anti-government Syrian groups with certain territorial control in the form of a proto-state as an alternative Syrian government, claiming to be the legitimate Syrian Arab Republic and also sometimes known just as the Republic of Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition

There are several links concerning the rebels. None link them to AQ. You are providing false information

What a bunch of gobbledygook that says nothing. I said, "Putin agrees with Donald about surrendering in Syria. You agree with Putin." You are in agreement with Putin. What part of my statement do you disagree with?

Please, no more gobbledygook. Just answer the question.

 

In Putin's mind, Trump has achieved successes beyond his expectations. It began with Trump's acquiescence to Putin at Helsinki, forsaking his own intelligence agencies and accepting Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in our 2016 election because Putin sounded forceful.

Fired being a euphemism for forcing to retire, Trump has fired key members of his administration recently. They were advisors who contributed much to Trump's administration, the attorney general, the U.N. ambassador, the White House counsel, the Interior Secretary, Trump's chief of staff, Trump's favored replacement for chief of staff, and the Defense Secretary. Often, as in the case of Heather Nauert, Matt Whitaker, and Patrick Shanahan, they are replaced by people new at the job because Trump does not want someone who will actually voice his/her opinion.

As a consequence, the federal government is seriously weakened thanks to Trump and Putin could not be more pleased.

Trump then surrendered the field to Syrian and Russian forces along with the forces of the terrorist organization known as ISIS. This also gives a free hand to Putin's ally and America's enemy, Iran. Putin was flabbergasted when Trump withdrew all U.S. forces from Syria simply because the Turkish leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, asked him to ... flabbergasted, but jumping with joy. Putin's much needed warm water naval facility at Tartus and his huge airbase are secure. Russia's proxy war with the U.S. in Syria is won.

Last, but certainly not least, Trump shut down the federal government. His excuse was an ineffectual wall, and he proudly claimed responsibility for the shutdown. He forgot his campaign promise. The part about Mexico paying for the wall. Combined with Trump's retreat in Syria and the loss of key members of his administration, chaos reigns supreme in Washington.

If Putin had managed to install a former KGB agent in the White House, he could not have done better than Donald Trump. There is little wonder why Putin is jumping with glee.

 

As long as there is oil in the Mideast, it will always be of strategic importance to the West, that includes us.

Unfortunately.

 

So basically you are for total inclusion of American influence even when it does not effect oil.

 

ISIS numbers between 20,000 and 30,000 in Iraq and Syria and can easily get reinforcements from the region. Unburdened by territory -- which makes our incompetent President think he has won a great victory -- they are more dangerous than ever. They are now a true guerilla force and can hit and run, and they will strike anywhere in the world, including the U.S. In fact, they have. They are fighting on their soil. That makes them more determined and they an unlimited supply of reinforcements.

Unburdened by territory and cities, they are now a difficult force to defeat because they won't stand and fight.

All that is reality, Seth. Do you wish to ignore it?

If you had read my posts, you would know that I have not flip-flopped. BTW, the statements you provided were written before Trump was President and Clinton was being hailed as the next President. How could I have been anti-Trump before he became President? The comments were in a completely different context.

We don't occupy Syria, and we never should, just like I said in October 2016. Period. End of story.

That's what happened. I said, "So, Trump decides to surrender to them [ISIS] and he tells the American people that Erdogan will carry on the fight." Erdogan told Trump he would engage ISIS. Trump believed him and decided to leave the field.

To support Trump and Putin, you have to ignore facts.