Syria doesnt want us there. Turkey doesnt want us there. Why should we be there?

No they didn't. Read the link I have provided twice to you.

As I said: ."Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Hanlon's Razor

Why else would you insert this into my discussion about Trump?

 

Quoting gibberish does not change the fact that the Obama Admin armed and supported Al Qaeda/ ISIS in Syria.

Your discussion is not just about Trump .. The OP is about pulling out of Syria.
Syria doesnt want us there. Turkey doesnt want us there. Why should we be there?

If you don't like responses that relate to the OP .. go post in another thread.

 

Look. I have debated this many times. I'll respond to you on this once. But then I'll finish off and leave you with the question at the end.

Your position and approach is ridiculous but, more than that, it's naive. The Middle East is waaaay more complex than you obviously think. I'll give you an example: When Reagan armed the Afghan rebels to fight of the Soviet invasion in the 80s, the final result was... The Taliban. The simplistic logic you use would conclude that Ronald Reagan was responsible for 9-11. Which is ridiculous. Presidents take risks which sometimes pay off and sometimes backfire. Should Reagan have let the Soviets take hold of Afghanistan? That answer can be answered one way in hindsight, by doing the numbers... people killed in Afghanistan, vs the benefits of the fall of the Soviet Union which was partly due to their failure here... and so on. But it would be different if we had to make it at the time.

Obama a decision which might or might not have resulted in removing Assad. That was obviously the objective. Not to arm Isis. And it didn't work. The way you present this is as if Obama were in some sort of "conspiracy" to create terrorist groups. Just as ridiculous as attributing 9-11 to Reagan.

If you want to be taken seriously, you would analyze the pros an cons as known at the time of arming anti-Assad groups. And you would extract a conclusion about the convenience of, in the future, arming any group in the region. And I would agree that we need to be extremely careful who we arm, and with what type of weapons. Or we could discuss the alternative to only arm our own forces and send them to the region. Or the last resort which is to completely pull out of the region so long as we don't do it like the Idiot in Chief did it. But by warning our allies and giving them time to prepare for our departure. Knowing that we would completely abandon defending our interests in the region, which also creates many dangers for us here in the mainland.

That's what a serious debate would look like....

That is all I have to say here. Because that is not what I participated in this thread to discuss. That's a matter for a completely separate thread. So now I leave you with the question I mentioned above: Who is Obama?

 

I agree that the issue isn't simple and that we've walked out on our promises in the past.

The case here goes beyond that. This was a precipitous move that was not discussed with our military. It came with no plan or discussion.

What is reported to have happened is that Trump had a phone call with Erdogan and then ordered our military to allow Turkey to start slaughtering Kurds. And, that's exactly what has happened.

Pointing to the complexity in the region only supports the need for a far better process than that, even if we think slaughtering the Kurds is OK. And, we should have learned from that Bush41 incident.

Beyond that, Trump's comments about this decision pointed out his "big, beautiful" hotels in Turkey - raising serious questions concerning the real reasons for totally ignoring our military in paving the way for Turkey to begin the slaughter.

 

Finally you manage to do something other than go into abject denial and/or fallacy and name calling .. much appreciated.

There is no doubt that the Objective was to remove Assad. The first question you should be asking is "why" ... what is the point. And to this question there has been no good answer given by the Administration.

The second problem is how we went about removing Assad - by using a proxy army - one supplied with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment and other support.

The undisputed fact of the matter - something even VP Biden admitted to - along with the Defense Intelligence Agency - along with NY-Times and every other objective journalist covering the war - was that the proxy army we were arming and supporting was composed of radical Islamist extremists.

From the DIA - in 2012 - right at the beginning of the war.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

we knew what we were getting into .. right from the get go.

Biden

https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/

2 points First - there was no moderate Middle - claims that came later - in 2014 after our dog ISIS in Syria went off its leash and went into Iraq - of some significant moderate presence fighting against Assad was a lie ... The "Moderate Rebel Lie".

The propagation of this lie was disturbing on a number of levels ... that our officials lie to us is one (for no good reason) - that the media covered up these lies is another.

Second - Biden states directly who the people being supplied with weapons were - confirming everything that objective media was saying at the time - and even the US Propaganda Media such as the NY-Times was saying this - prior to changing their tune - and forgetting previous reporting to support Obama's "moderate rebel lie".

What Biden doesn't mention is that the CIA was facilitating these weapons transfers. - as per previous link "Stop Arming Terrorist Act"

Not that this matters as Saudi Arabia is responsible to notify the US of end use of sophisticated technology such as TOW and surface to air missiles.

From the Times in 2013 - when the radical Islamist Jihadists had taken over most of Syria but prior to coalescing into the Islamic State - IS- ISIS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=

You can find the same reported from countless other sources.

A band of rebels fighting with kalashnikov rifles can not fight a nation state. The effort to arm the rebels was a massive effort involving numerous nations states ... as described in the DIA report.

We can debate whether or not we had some good reason to arm who we did. "our interest in the Middle East or some such platitude" What is not debatable - by any rational mind that has any knowledge of the conflict - is that the people we were arming were radical Islamist extremists - primarily Al Qaeda - its affiliates and other groups of the same ilk - same nut job agenda - just going under different names such as Islamic Front .. Martyrs for Islam - and so on.

Yet - this is what you continue to try and deny.

What is even more absurd were the continuous claims in the propaganda MSM - ones which you clearly have bought into - that we were there to fight terrorism.

This has everything to do with this current Kurd dilemma. The first being that we would not be here had we not ... in the words of Rand Paul -

The Second issue is - What are we supposed to do. Turkey has decided to go into Syria - despite our protests. They are going in - they have told us they are going in - and that nothing we say is going to stop them.

The options are then what ?

1) Go to war with Turkey
2) Rapidly get a huge amount of arms to the Kurds - like we did for the radical Islamist extremists in Syria
3) Hide out forces somewhere away from the battle area - letting the Turks know where they are it is not bombed - and watch from the sidelines
4) have our few hundred soldiers fight with the Kurds - a suicide mission
5) get our troops out of there.

Choose - or feel free to suggest option 6.

 

This happened in Afg, too. We supported some group and that group cooperated with some other group with similar objectives. Or, they totally switched sides.

This was a serious issue during the Obama administration as the US struggled to find ways to oppose both ISIS and Assad in Syria, where dependence on the local population was a key requirement, as the locals are the primary source of fighters - not the US or other outside entity. And again, groups formed various allegiances over time.

The same problems came up in Vietnam and probably in every armed conflict in which we were involved since that time. And, it extends to other kinds of support, too. We support Saudi Arabia, which is antithetical to every premise we believe in. We created Iraq as an Iranian satellite. We support Israel in spite of their ethnic cleansing of Palestine. We have supported Pakistan, which harbors terrorists escaping US forces in Afg. Etc.

Interpreting this as the US supporting terrorist groups is absolute and total nonsense. Terrorists work within populations, where the locals are the ones who can oppose them. Yet, the locals have more than one serious problem and don't necessarilly prioritize OUR objectives on a permanent basis.

If we're going to fight terrorist groups in other countries, we have to accept that.

 

What are the options though ? Turkey stated directly that they are going in whether we like it or not.

1) Go to war with Turkey
2) Rapidly get a huge amount of arms to the Kurds - like we did for the radical Islamist extremists fighting Assad in Syria - which is the same as going to war with Turkey.
3) Hide our forces somewhere away from the battle area - letting the Turks know where they are it is not bombed - and watch from the sidelines
4) have our few hundred soldiers fight with the Kurds - a suicide mission
5) get our troops out of there.

Choose - or feel free to suggest option 6.

The Kurd are going to get toasted sans options 1 and 2. This is a fact - regardless of whether we leave a few troops there or not.

So do we leave our troops there to watch ? what is the point ?

Not sure if you realize this but the Syrian Democratic Forces - is just a rebranding of the YPG which is an branch of the PKK
U.S. general told Syria's YPG: 'You have got to change your brand'
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...u-have-got-to-change-your-brand-idUSKBN1A62SS

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-syrian-kurds-the-u-s-is-abandoning-quicktake

The point of this is not to demonize the Kurds - I disagree with the label personally - a persecuted group fighting for autonomy is not the same as "Al Qaeda".

The point is to point out what a mess this whole situation is. A mess which - in its recent incarnation - is something we created by deciding to use Al Qaeda - ISIS and other groups of the same ilk as a proxy army in Syria.

 

Yes, there weren't moderate fighters. There ARE moderates in Syria and Biden identified them. They weren't ready to close their shops and go to civil war, so they weren't available to us as people to arm.

The idea that the majority fighting against Assad were ISIS or AQ isn't supportable. There absoltuely were fighters in Syria who aimed to end Assad and weren't interested in supporting those terrorist groups.

The catch is similar to what happened in Iraq - Sunnis couldn't fight both ISIS and the government and militia troops who fought against them. We made the mistake of equating Sunnis and AQ and paid a serious price for that. The result is that Sunnis had no choice but to find common cause with ISISf ighters against the Shiite militias and anti-Sunni government forces that America supported.

That was a big US mistake in Iraq. Now, you seem to be trying to propose the same kind of mistake in Syria, suggesting that all who opposed Assad were ISIS or AQ. Yet, that's no more true in Syria than it was in Iraq or in Afg, for that matter.

 

Kind of seems that the democrats are war mongers here again.

 

It isn't total nonsense - either you are ill informed or unable to deal with reality.

We were not opposed to ISIS in Syria .. our opposition to ISIS came when our dog in Syria went off its leash and went into Iraq.

We were arming and supporting ISIS - The conflict in Syria was not a "civil war" - because civilians did not take part. It was an armed insurgency of radical Islamist Jihadists .. a "Holy War" in which Jihadists from around the world poured into Syria to take part in the Holy Jihad.

ISIS - as a fighting force - did not even exist in Syria in the first couple years of the war. The major fighting forces were ... as per the Defense Intelligence Agency

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

The above is from 2012 .. shortly after the conflict began. There were no "moderates" of any significance in this war. That was an Obama lie - concocted after 2014 when ISIS went into Iraq.

VP Biden:

https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/

What Biden did not mention at the time - but has been verified since that time - was that the CIA was facilitating these arms transfers ... From Benghazi, Saudi Arabia, and various Eastern European states such as Bulgaria.

So don't sit there and pretend " we had good intentions but all those arms somehow fell into the wrong hands" as that is complete unadulterated propaganda BS.

We knew exactly who we were arming .... the 911 terrorist group- and others of the same ilk - that's who.

That was the whole reason for the "Stop Arming Terrorists" act.

 

Turkey is a NATO nation. Suggesting they are going to go to war with America is ridiculous. We cleared out in order to enable them to go to start slaughtering Kurds.

We had NO REASON to dump the Kurds so percipitously that they now have to take their families and run for their very lives.

So this operation can NOT be defended.

And, there are serious reasons against this operation.

 

???
For opposing the idea of throwing Kurds under the bus so percipitously that 10s of thousands of families have to run for their lives as their homes are bombed?

For opposing what is sure to mean ISIS captives will be released?

There is no possible way to justify this decision. Even if we were to leave (allowing more full control by Iran, Syria and Russia) there is no possible justification for doing it like this.

 

We had no reason to stay or intervene either. The pkk have been attacking turkey since the.mid 80's. No way turkey would let them setup a state on their border. Turkey doesn't want a Gaza 2.0

The kurds have failed to setup a state in iraq and now they failed in syria. Time to change tactics.

 

Great research as usual.
Gabbard may be the last thinking DP politician.

 

And the PKK are anti-American Communists.

 

There was nothing precipitous about the US withdrawal. It was a campaign promise in 2016. The Kurds have had years to get clear of Turkey.

 

Well, ISIS is a derivitave of AQ in Iraq. You're misinterpreting your pdf.

No, much of the opposition to Assad was a civil war of revolution. There were multiple groups opposed to Assad strongly enough to fight.

Agreed. ISIS related groups entered or were motivated by AQ in Iraq. When they started carrying out operations in Syria they worked under other names, as your doc points out.

Your cite does not support that.

And, the act does not show that we were directly and intentionally supporting ISIS or AQI in Syria or anywhere else.

As I pointed out above, there were paths for arms to find their way to ISIS through the interaction of the various groups of fighters and their relative fluid relationships.

Again, I remember a House hearing held explicitly to question those executive branch jobs involved arms aid to fighting groups in Syria. THEY said that any significant arms give to US approved groups would find their way to fighters we did NOT approve of. Thus, they were opposed to sending any significant arms even to US approved groups.

McCain (a senator) crashed the meeting, got time, and in red faced anger attacked the administration for not giving hand held ground to air missiles and other heavy weapons to indigenous forces - even as the administration representation pointed to the near certainty that those weapons would find their way to ISIS forces, who could use them in Syria, Iraq, or anywhere else.

You need to show evidence of your cliam.

 

For many years there has been a Kurdish region of Turkey. Turkey has a long history of military and legal assault on all who live there, denying them any real participation or representation.

Kurds have demonstrated intent to retain autonomy for their regions, as demonstrated by their concord with Iraq under SH.

They have failed to set up a state in Iraq, because the US was explicitly opposed to them being allowed to doing that. After our conquest, we discussed division of Iraq into their three clear areas - Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni. WE prevented that from happening and instead chose leadership that is Shiite and aligned with Iran.

Maybe it is time to change tactics.

BUT, there is NO EXCUSE to making a snap decision that leaves tens of thousands of Kurdish families running for their lives - which IS what is happening today.

 

Dude ... you not displaying an informed objective perspective ... you have not researched this issue at all - and you are making stuff up as you go - and when not doing that - reciting the establishment propaganda narrative.

1) The IS - ISIL - ISIS didn't exist as a fighting group in Syria in the beginning years of the war so stick with Al Qaeda for now (and you should know this distinction if you were informed)

2) Never have I claimed that all those who opposed Assad were ISIS or AQ

3) That the majority of those fighting against Assad (pre ISIS) were either Al Qaeda - Al Qaeda affiliates - or various other groups "of the same ilk" - with a wide variety of names - Islamic Front being one of the largest - "not directly Al Qaeda" groups consisting of a bunch of other groups banding together - is a demonstrable fact. How much proof would you like ?

You are not off to a good start here.

2) The protest movement was full of moderates .. Assad is not well liked. At least not speaking to a Syrian friend of mine who had just return from Syria - after not being there for over 20 years (family disownment issue ) He made up with family and invested in a chicken farm.

This was during the protest movement but prior to armed insurrection. Over drinks we had a conversation starting with "so whats going on over there". He said - the people - they don't like Assad much - but they hate the radicals.. he went on .. especially the Christians.

Syria is a Secular Muslim Nation - no strict Sharia - drinking alcohol and dancing in bars - women wearing skirts and proper bathing suits - no death penalty for apostasy adultery, being gay .. and so on - Christian Churches and relative freedom of religion. Woman needs not the permission of a man to be educated - or to do anything else. One of the most free Muslim nations on the planet .. never mind in the ME.

One rule - which is pretty much the same in China - Don't speak out against the Gov't .. but in Syria the radicals are everywhere .. its nothing like China.

So what does it mean "of the same ilk" - these are the radical Islamist Extremists. - they hate Secularism - they hate individual liberty - and they are just full of hate in general.

Al Qaeda's state purpose - is the war against Secularism - the western infidel is one thing - but a Muslim nation - in the middle east - that is a cancer from within.

So those are the two sides - The war in Syria was a war to turn Syria into a proper Orwellian Totalitarian nightmare Islamic State - like that of Saudi Arabia.

And you are on one side - or you are on the other. If you were living in Syria - what would you choose. 1) Assad 2) Radical Islamist Extremists (of which Al Qaeda was just one)

These are the "tough questions" - ones our propaganda media manages to omit.

We still have 1 and 3 to get to .. but I will stop at this question.

So Choose 1) Assad 2) Radical Islamist Extremist there is no third option ... we are talking two sides of the war here.

PS - you can choose to argue later that there was some Moderate Middle - but I assure you this is preposterous nonsense with respect to the decision of your average Joe Syrian.

Sure there are extremist sects of the population - who did not fight - that supported the radical jihadists doing the fighting. That is one side = and Assad is the other.

To help with your decision - here is a snippet of what was happening during the protest movement - a movement that started out with moderates but was quickly taken over by the extremists - who were going around telling Christians to either join the Protest movement or leave the country.

Christians Under Attack From Anti-Government Protesters in Syria
https://www.christianpost.com/news/...om-anti-government-protestors-in-syria-50104/


“We want to improve life and rights in Syria under this president, but we do not want terrorism. Christians will be the first to pay the price of terrorism.”

One side .. or the other.

Took over the protests they did.

Well that's nice - Salafists ? who are these fellows.. Hint - El Saud inspired radical extremist Islamist ideology - of the kind it has been exporting all over the world for decades - arming and supporting these groups in some cases .. Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Pakistan Extremists - the ones in India doing all those bombings - and various others "ALL" follow the same El Saud inspired extremist ideology.

One side - or the other .. Are you with these Salafists - or with Assad - that is your choice. There is no third party candidate.

Freedom - as much as we have here - sans the ability to criticize the Gov't or Saudi inspired extremist Islamist Strict Sharia totalitarianism.

What does the average Syrian to choose ?

 

This is total and absolute BS.

We were supporting the Kurds, who were the major indigenous force fighting ISIS.

The idea that a campaign promise would cause huge numbers of people to abandon their homes and become refugees is just plain stupid.

 

You have the Defense Intelligence agency stating that we support AQI - Salafists "sectarianism"

You have not addressed this.

You have Biden Stating directly that Saudi Arabia was giving arms to Al Nusra - and various other extremist groups. You did not address this - Biden did not state that the CIA was involved - but since that time we know CIA was involved from other sources.

Such As - The "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" - a bill introduced to the house with 13 Bi-Partisan co-sponsors.

The rational given for this bill is as follows:

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/StopArmingTerrorists

Not sure it could be any more clear - Will. Perhaps you havn't seen this before but I have posted it numerous times... if you have - We are now drifting into denial of the obvious land.

 

That's what I pointed out when I saw comments about ISIS going to Iraq. ISIS came from Iraq.

Our government saw that there were significant forces that opposed Assad and were NOT terrorist groups such as AQ or ISIS or related terrorists.

You want it to be a numbers game, without providing numbers. I'm pointing out that it is irrelevant, as we were supporting groups that were not the terrorists you talk about.

You are just talking about those who have the majority of the fighters. Our government argued that we were not going to be successful in overthrowing Assad and that we had no solution for Syrian government even if we accomplished that. However, local fighters willing to oppose ISIS also tended to oppose Assad. So, at times those we backed found common cause with terrorist groups against Assad when Assad was bombing the crap out of the cities where they lived.

I do not accept your "either or" analysis. Serious factors facing Syrians changed as Assad changed targets and methods and as ISIS did the same. Even the USA supports Saudi direction, and it's not because we have some desire for that style of government!

Under extreme duress, Syrians faced the need to stay alive, to keep their families fed, to respond to the most threatening force of the day, etc. Interpreting their responses to those existential threats as a desire for totalitarianism or whatever hits me as nonsense.

 

More importantly right now, NONE of this justifies leaving Kurdish families running for their lives as Turkey slaughters those who don't make it.

We had NO NEED for Trump to make his flip and unconsidered decision to run.

 

In fact, the PKK has always known that Trump intended to get out of Syria. They chose to ignore it just as they have consistently refused to learn how a military encounter with Turkey will end for them even though they have been taught that lesson repeatedly.

Beyond that the PKK Kurds are not our friends. We have had common enemies - Turkey is not one of those enemies - TG.

"How They Fight
Nearly a decade after its founding, the group turned to terrorist tactics in the mid-1980s, relying on guerrilla warfare that included kidnappings of foreign tourists in Turkey, suicide bombings, and attacks on Turkish diplomatic offices in Europe. The PKK has also repeatedly attacked civilians who refuse to assist it. As fighting reached a peak in the mid-1990s, thousands of villages were destroyed in southeast and eastern Turkey. The PKK launched most of its attacks on Turkish security forces, but also attacked other Turkish sites at home and abroad, as well as Kurdish civilians who would not cooperate with the group. An estimated thirty-seven thousand people have been killed in the fighting."
CFR, Inside the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Backgrounder by Greg Bruno, October 19, 2007.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/inside-kurdistan-workers-party-pkk

 

Let's skip that, as it really relates to what we should be doing in a planned, controled way in the ME. Maybe we should do nothing.

The main issue today is that we percipitously backed off to allow Turkey to begin slaughtering Kurds, leaving tens of thousands running for their lives.

THAT is the issue today.

It was a snap military decision without consultation of our military. It was announced by Trump with the inclusion of the fact that he ows hotels in Turkey and that his last contact was with Turkey. It was made with ZERO indication of there existing a planned, larger direction for the US in the region.

This is NOT how the US should make ANY decision. And, it is costing large numbers of lives sacrificed by the US as we bail on our promises.